But at what point do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?”
This is very simple.
You don’t.
Some speech is legally actionable. Threats, harassment, defamation, conspiracy, solicitation of criminal activity. You cannot use your words to break the law and then call it free speech.
“Hate Speech”with all the intentional vaguery that attends to it, is not on this list in America, and in countries where it is on the list, it is predictably a political weapon and invariably used maliciously and dishonestly to harm good people.
“Hate speech” is a fake term made up by Leftists to spread lies about the realities of race and sex, in their anti-human efforts to destroy all that is good in the world, and silence anyone who dares to dispute their lies.
And for what it’s worth, I have little use for the concept of free speech. We don’t allow people to spam forums with male enhancement product ads, and we should have stopped allowing the deviants to parade their sexual depravity in public a long time ago. “Drag Queen Story Hour” is evidence of a scheme to molest children, not free speech. Lock them all up.
But if you deny Men of good character the Right to speak the truth as they see it, and discover error through open debate, then you end up with violence. It’s not a theory, we’ve seen it happen too many times. The people most invested in the censorship consider this a good thing, because they don’t care how many people die as long as they get to use it against their political opponents. We know this too, because Roberta Kaplan, the same ethnocentric Democrat criminal lawyer (as in, lawyer who is a criminal, not a criminal defense attorney) who sued me and Donald Trump, bragged about his in interviews with Jewish publications.
Kaplan: “We absolutely can and will bankrupt these groups. And then we will chase these people around for the rest of their lives. So if they try to buy a new home, we will put a lien on the home. If they get a new job, we will garnish their wages. The reason to do that is because we want to create a deterrence impact. So we send a message to other people that if you try to do something like this, the same thing will happen to you. And it already has been a deterrence. *We’re seeing lone shooters now; we’re not seeing the kind of massively organized conspiracy we saw in Charlottesville. And I think that’s in large part due to our case*.”
She thinks he lawsuit is responsible for mass shootings, and she is proud of this.
Now, she couches her language in the idea that lone shooters are better than organized conspiracies, and you might agree with that if you believe the lie.
But I beat that allegation in a civil trial, where the standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” representing myself pro se. I was held liable for harassment, not a violent conspiracy. That theory of liability is the subject of an appeal before the 4th Circuit as I write this, because I wasn’t sued for harassment. I was sued for a violent conspiracy, and they failed to prove this, because it didn’t happen. We were confronted by armed criminals at a permitted demonstration, then held liable for hurting their feelings. It’s preposterous. This is what “hate speech” ideology predictably produces.
The federal claims for a violent conspiracy were just dismissed with prejudice by Judge Moon in the Western District of Virginia. So what Ms. Kaplan is saying is, she prefers violence to speech. It’s unambiguous, these people are monsters and you shouldn’t aid in their villainous mission by using their terminology of “hate speech”
www.rawstory.com
