 |
|
O'Reilly taken to task for 'hate speech' comment
Friday, August 17, 2007
Bill O'Reilly probably said the stupidest thing I've ever heard him say on "The Factor" two weeks ago. In an interview segment with Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall about the rise of hatred on the Internet, O'Reilly said: "There should be laws in the civil arena to deal with this."
To be fair, O'Reilly was talking about allowing people to sue for defamation of character - which is entirely reasonable. However, the fact that Bill married that concept to the notion of "hate speech on the web" is what troubles me.
|
|
|
O'Reilly is an intelligent guy. He knows that Web musings are covered under constitutionally protected free speech. Sure, a lot of offensive things are said, but in a democracy some things like free speech have to be guarded as sacred ground. And that's why the connection he drew between "defamation of character" and so-called hate speech - which is a ticking time-bomb - was far too direct and potentially destructive to my way of thinking.
The whole notion that there is a direct correlation between so-called hate speech and hateful actions is a red herring anyway.
First, there is no respectable statistical study that has tracked any empirical connection between so-called "hate speech" and crimes against persons anywhere.
That's not to say a statistical study couldn't be made. It is just that it would be politically incorrect to do so. It would conflict with one of the sacred cows of liberalism: multiculturalism. I'm speaking here, of course, of the obvious link between Jihadist calls for the murder of Jews, Christians and secular progressive homosexuals everywhere, and the actual beheadings which accompany that particular form of hate-speech. But like I said, that would be politically incorrect.
Besides, as a liberal friend of mine, who doesn't want to be named, has said: "Fatwahs aren't hate speech. They're just a 'turn of the phrase' uttered by people who have a different view of reality."
The second, and bigger problem with "hate speech laws" is that they beg a very important question: what is hate anyway? Think about it. How can something as absolute as hate exist in a world of relativity?
Consider our postmodern setting.
For years, liberal academics everywhere have been telling us that there is no absolute truth, no real meaning and no ultimate value. We are told that all of these things are "relative." This idea is so ingrained in our culture that it has become the basic philosophical paradigm influencing everything from the economy to politics and the judiciary. There are no constants. Everything is in a state of flux. Even former absolute liberties such as property rights and institutions like marriage are now up for grabs.
People even fail to see the irony when someone such as Madonna can sing "Like a Virgin," while having apparently done "the nasty" more times than most prostitutes. And that is because academics tell us: "definitions are what you make them."
Which brings us to the real point: liberals want control - even if it means destroying the foundations of Western democracy.
Liberals, who have traditionally argued for free speech when they tried to promote cantankerous causes such as pornography and flag-burning are now making an about-face by arguing for the restraint of "free speech" when it doesn't favor their political ideology.
Just consider the words of one "hate-repressor" who works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Dean Steacy is a top investigator for the CHRC, and here's what he said about freedom of speech in an exchange with Barbara Kulaszka, a lawyer representing a website owner:
MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?
MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.
MS KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.
MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.
It's not that Steacy rejects "freedom of speech." He simply doesn't believe in the concept of a pluralistic democracy where people actually have a constitutional guarantee that the government won't be able to silence them just because someone like Steacy says so. And the reason he rejects the concept of democracy is because in his world, and in the world of his cadre of "hate-crusaders," it is only his definitions that matter, not ours.
Crusaders such as Steacy are working to "cleanse" the Internet of critical opinions, ideas, and speech they don't like. And unfortunately for Canadians, they have the authority to assess fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be "haters."
And that's why I find it so unbelievable that a guy like Bill O'Reilly would be playing into their hands. Because the hypocrisy underlying the hate-speech law movement is so brazen and treacherous that we're all blithering idiots to be sitting here taking it the way we do.
Be very careful what you're asking for, Bill. Your cure may be worse than the disease it's meant to fix.
| Yours for our culture, |
Tristan Emmanuel |
| ECP Centre President |
|
|
|
