The mythical boundaries of hate speech


My homie Swapsman over on Gab hooked me up with this link to an article from Australia on the old gay marriage blitz that’s currently going on down under. When it opens you’ll get a frighteningly annoying song that plays over a montage of all the countries in the whole wide world that have legalised the sodomites sticking a ring on it. Keep in mind that the article is from the taxpayer funded, (as opposed to government funded) broadcaster SBS, which would not look out of place as the North Korean stand-in for the Al Jazeera network. Here’s the sub heading to the piece:

“A new program will soon begin which is aimed at monitoring intimidating, threatening or vilifying content against the LGBTI community.”

Isn’t that grand? Your taxpayer dollars well spent I imagine. The thing is though, where’s the balance? I mean, where’s the monitoring of intimidating content against people who don’t think that the homos should be walking down the aisle? Oh yeah, there isn’t any.

You see, the Federal government has just rushed through a temporary new law that makes it illegal to make anyone suffer the feel bads during the gay marriage vote, with a maximum penalty of 12 big ones, holy mackaroly, I sure could buy some shares in Gab with that! (sarcasm, morons). Keep in mind that this new temporary law swings both ways, if you excuse the awesome and so-subtle-that-I-had-to-point-it-out-to-you pun that I just used. Now some people are worried that this law could be an incursion of free speech, (no way bro!), but personally I think that it’s totally brilliant as we’ll get to see what affect and repercussions a permanent law like this might entail.

For a sensational example of this in action let us turn our collective beady gaze back to the SBS article.

“A group of trained volunteers from Queensland will form ‘Like Love’, a group created to monitor forums and social media to report content that incites hatred during the same-sex marriage postal survey …

“The Queensland Government were quick to supply $7,000 to help train members of Like Love in an attempt to reduce the impact of such vilifying material …

“All information collated by Like Love will be sent to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission for review.”

Bang, just like that they get 7 large from the government, and a mere few days after the law is passed. Gee, it’s amazing how quickly the government can haul butt when it wants to mete out furious retribution on all the fag haters. “Trained volunteers.” Don’t you just love the sound of that? What’s the bet that their average age is 19 and they are all taking feminist and queer studies at some Queensland university?

“LGBTI Legal Service President Matilda Alexander said there was a misconception that hate speech was acceptable and part of freedom of speech.

“At the legal service we have seen an increase in hate speech online, in posters, in discussions in the media and there seems to be a misconception that freedom of speech allows you to say whatever you want and villify people on the basis of their sexuality and their gender identity,” Ms Alexander told SBS World News.

“We wanted to make sure firstly, that people know that kind of speech is unlawful and secondly, to have the tool available to be able to make a complaint and bring it to our attention so we can make a complaint to the relevant anti-discrimination body in Queensland.”

Just so you all know, the term “hate speech” means exactly nothing at all. I challenge this stupid woman to define the term. Come on, “Matilda”. What does hate speech actually mean? Define it for us. Define the parameters. Set it out clearly so we all understand. Is it defamation? Is that what you mean? Or is it something else? Something rather, how shall we say, nebulous?

Hate speech means whatever they want it to mean. It is a tyrannical term remnant of the Soviet politburo. Hate speech is anything that you say that they hate. And they want to punish you for it. Dr Jordan Peterson has stated that the crucial aspect of the hate speech term is who gets to define hate. But they’re not even defining it. They’re just making it up as they go along.

“These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter … and printed material,” Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said.

“While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated.”

“While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used” and yet the Queensland government immediately set up its own teenage Stasi team ready to monitor the written speech of Australian citizens in a proactive effort at soliciting prosecution.

There is only one acceptable counter point to speech of any type, and that is more speech. Not fines or economic punishment, and certainly not government appointed guardians zealously patrolling the internet to find speech that is not offensive but unacceptable.

Do you understand the difference? You can only be offended if it is directed at you. Speech cannot of itself be offensive if it is forced to hold to “standards” or “acceptability”. By what rubric can these internet teenage guardians determine what speech is unacceptable? It can’t be because it is offensive for the simply reason that you cannot take offense on someone else’s behalf. It can’t be because it incites hatred because first of all that doesn’t mean anything and second of all where is the evidence of this incited hatred?

Far from what this idiot LGBTI Legal Service President has to say on the matter, freedom of speech does mean that you have the freedom to say whatever you want to say as long as you don’t defame anyone or anything.

The true objective of this attempt at actual big brother surveillance is to make an example of a few unlucky individuals so that the majority hesitate to speak in the future. It is to render the masses silent. It is to make them live, if not in fear, then at least in mute hesitation at what future consequences their speaking words may bring. And they will have to wonder at the consequences because as I have already stated, hate speech means nothing and everything. It means whatever they want it to mean.

It is pure Kafkaesque. Hauled before a court and accused of “inciting hatred” or “vilifying a community”. But what does the crime entail? What are the actual legal parameters of this hate speech? Can we define hate speech so that after I have served my ten years in the gulag I can be sure of not crossing the boundary once again?

Of course not, dear comrade. The boundaries are wherever they want them to be.