Words have meaning. Twisting them into something they are not doesn’t change their meaning. In response to the Charlie Hebdo attack in France we recently seen various people trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the concept of Free Speech.
The Catholic Pontiff said “You can’t provoke, you can’t insult the faith of others, you can’t make fun of faith,” alongside “Everyone has not only the freedom and the right but the obligation to say what he thinks for the common good … we have the right to have this freedom openly without offending.” He went so far as to say “It is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if (he) says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal.” To which I say Bullshit! You either have free speech or you don’t. The only limiting factors are falsehood and inciting someone to cause injury. You have the right to be offended, but not the right to assault someone or destroy property because you’ve taken offense. Also, he apparently forgot about that whole ‘turn the other cheek’ thing Jesus spoke about in the Sermon on the Mount. If someone gives offense, you aren’t to give it back. However you are allowed to defend yourself and others from assault.
Then, there is the clueless rambling spiel that Tanya Cohen put forth (http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/here-is-why-its-time-to-get-tough-on-hate-speech-in-america/) regarding the need for Hate Speech laws in the US. She apparently confuses thoughts/speech with actions. Inciting violence that another person takes up is illegal. Ask former Democratic House candidate and KKK Grand Dragon Tom Metzger still owes for his WAR speeches inciting people to kill blacks.
She shows her own hate by stating “…in the US, fascist political parties like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party are allowed to freely exist and to spread their hateful ideology, even though these parties oppose fundamental human rights and thus have absolutely no place in a democratic society.” All because people belonging to these groups have differing ideas than her proper good think. She even has a list of 20 points:
In order to establish ourselves as a country that sincerely respects fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms, and individual liberties, America needs to pass basic human rights legislation – such as a Human Rights Act – that outlaws, among other things:
1. Speech which offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, discriminates against, and/or incites hatred or violence against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or sexual activity, gender identity or gender expression, disability, language, language ability, ideology or opinion, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and/or any other comparable distinction. In cases where hate speech is aggravated – such as incitement to genocide – prison sentences should be even longer.
2. The spreading of misinformation, including climate change denial, denial of war crimes and genocides (especially Holocaust denial), conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine propaganda, and general nonsense.
3. Anti-feminist, anti-multicultural, anti-immigration, and/or anti-equality ideology.
4. Insulting, disrespectful, and/or offensive speech in general and speech that violates the dignity of people. This would include, for example, jokes about tragedies along with insults and derogatory/disrespectful comments about any person, group, place, or thing.
5. Speech that disparages the memory of deceased persons.
6. Speech that voices approval of oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and/or totalitarian ideologies. This would include, for example, speech that opposes a woman’s right to have an abortion and speech that approves of Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
7. Speech that opposes any human rights. This would mean that anyone saying that hate speech shouldn’t be against the law would be prosecuted, since hate speech is universally recognized as an injustice and a human rights violation. It would also include propaganda for war, which is illegal under international human rights law.
8. Speech that incites, instructs, assists, condones, celebrates, justifies, glorifies, advocates, or threatens violence and/or law-breaking and speech that undermines the rule of law. This would include, for example, the advocacy of gun ownership (which would be classified as incitement to violence in any civilized country). In a civilized society, advocating violence is no different than actually committing the violence yourself. Only in the US is inciting violence and murder – even inciting violence and murder against minorities – considered to be “free speech”.
9. Speech that undermines the authority of the state and/or interferes with the state’s ability to properly function and do its job. This would also include speech that undermines the authority of the United Nations and/or international law.
10. Speech that objectifies women and/or reduces them to their sexual dimension, such as pornography and catcalling.
11. Speech that promotes unacceptable ideas, such as un-democratic ideologies and ideologies that oppose freedom. This would also apply to promoting people who promote or promoted unacceptable ideas. For example, in the case of The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled that glorifying Hitler not only constitutes incitement to Hatred, but also incitement to violence.
12. Speech that harms and/or divides society in general, including speech that damages social cohesion.
13. Symbols associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as Nazi swastikas and Confederate flags.
14. Gestures and salutes associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as fascist salutes.
15. Speech which constitutes microaggressions against vulnerable minorities.
16. Images or recordings of any crimes.
17. Speech which may lead to tensions with other nations and/or upset people in other nations.
18. Speech which is found to be blasphemous towards minority religions.
19. Depictions of indecent violence (especially violence against women) and/or other offensive content.
20. Speech which is found to be irresponsible, unethical, antisocial, hurtful, impolite, uncivil, abusive, distasteful, and/or unacceptable in general.
She goes on in her delusion “We are not talking about censorship here. We are talking about cracking down on hate speech and protecting basic human rights.” The Hell You Aren’t Talking About Censorship! That is exactly what you are talking about. And if you can’t see that, you are one dumb (not ignorant, but dumb) cunt. She wants to cloak herself in liberal ideology (I’m talking classically liberal) and completely fails to see that people she undoubtedly looks up to, like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr who fought for principles like equality and self-determination would be guilty of crimes under her list, more than just the ones they were charged with at the time.
She’s not real good with facts either. I’ve noticed many modern liberals aren’t. “Hate speech has already had disastrous consequences for the United States. A recent example would be the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video – a disgusting Islamophobic video blatantly inciting hatred and violence against Muslims. This video directly led to numerous riots across the Islamic world, including an attack on a US embassy in Benghazi that left four dead.” Pardon me, but it’s been known for a couple of YEARS now that the video did not lead to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. The attack was premeditated and had more to do with the imprisonment of The Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and the death of Abu al-Libi in Yemen than the video, though it made a convenient excuse.
Then, she gets downright hypocritical. “Outlawing these forms of hatred does not interfere with the sacrosanct right to freedom of speech, and it would not violate the First Amendment in any way since hate speech is not freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form. Nobody has the right to take away rights from others. Nobody has the freedom to take away freedoms from others. Anyone guilty of hate speech – which should carry criminal penalties of 25 years to life – should be sent to special prisons designed to re-educate them and to instill values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and human rights in them. Prison is about punishment, but it’s also about changing the behavior of criminals.” (emphasis mine). Don’t tell me no one wants to take away someone’s freedom and then advocate for taking away their freedom by putting people in prison for 25 years or longer for a ‘thought crime’. My god, did you even read what you typed before hitting send?
Cohen, can you not see that just because someone you approve of is in power now, that doesn’t mean that someone else with a different view isn’t going to be in power tomorrow. Should you get your way with this type of banal dreck and there is a regime change (we have elections every 4 years here) that you could easily find yourself on one of the first trains to the gulag? The type of thing she is advocating for is exactly what Raif Badawi is going through right now in Saudi Arabia. Badawi is a blogger who started up a website called “Free Saudi Liberals” that dealt with criticism of the Saudi religious establishment (in this case Islam). He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes with a cane. His wife fears he won’t be able to survive.
Of course, after getting pummeled with comments showing her idiocy, she posted another article and double down on the stupid. http://thoughtcatalog.com/tanya-cohen/2015/01/why-do-americans-reject-human-rights-when-the-whole-world-embraces-them/ You may tell yourself that you’re combating the idealogues represented in 1984, but what you are really doing is trying to shove down that road to where newspeak is the only speech tolerated.
I’m sorry, but stupid bitch is still stupid, no matter how she tries to justify it. And when the government leaders change, and decide your little screed is now hate speech, enjoy your reeducation and don’t say no one told it could go bad.
Looks like the shit-stain known as Tanya Cohen is actually a prolific troll named Joshua Goldberg, and he got himself in some trouble for some of his actions. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150913/23335432247/one-man-troll-army-arrested-supporting-terrorists-wheres-line-between-trolling-terrorism.shtml