MENU

Regulation Against “Hate Speech” and “Fake News” Is a Leftist Ploy

By Vinay Kolhatkar

August 21, 2019

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

In the United Nations Plan of Action on Hate Speech, the U.N. offers us a definition of the term “hate speech,” versions of which are adopted in various international jurisdictions:

Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.

It’s in the foreword to this plan that the justification begins:

Around the world, we are seeing a disturbing groundswell of xenophobia, racism and intolerance – including rising anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and persecution of Christians. Social media and other forms of communication are being exploited as platforms for bigotry.

The Right to Express Bigotry

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In the U.S., this legal precision has been augmented by judicial support for free speech.

E.g., the justifiably-abhorred Ku Klux Klan was aggressively pursued on the grounds of hateful speech. In 1969, Klansman Clarence Brandenburg was charged with criminal syndicalism for an inflammatory speech. Yet, the Supreme Court was unanimous in not letting the State proscribe speech. Justice William Brennan wrote:

The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In 1977, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rights of a group to wear Nazi uniforms and display swastikas while marching through a town where over 16% of the population were Holocaust survivors. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

Then, in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the right to cross-burning against a state directive, opining: “A State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm.”

We have a politically-charged neologism like “hate speech” which implores to be accommodated in new regulation. Ask yourself why it’s needed.

If incitement to violence is (or can be) a legitimate prohibition, why do we need new legislation that criminalizes bigotry? As former Australian Attorney-General George Brandis once famously said during a parliamentary debate on this issue: “People have the right to be bigots.”

Instead, we have a politically-charged neologism like “hate speech” which implores to be accommodated in new regulation.

Ask yourself why it’s needed. Here’s the U.N.’s answer:

In June 2019, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres put “hate speech” “on notice,” as he launched a new plan to combat it. The photo-op was irresistible—dozens of innocent children, donning T-shirts that proclaimed “United Against Hate” while Guterres, appearing statesmanlike, reminded fawning journalists how hatred led to the Holocaust, and how “hate speech” was a precursor to “the genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and recent mass-violence directed at places of worship, in Sri Lanka, New Zealand and the United States.”

Does the U.N. memo serve an ulterior purpose? Let’s begin by asking—who is being gagged?

Who Is Being Gagged?

“Hate-speech” laws already exist in Canada, Australia, and in many countries in Europe.

“Hate-speech” laws already exist in Canada, Australia, and in many countries in Europe.

In 2014, Dutch politician Geert Wilders asked at a campaign rally whether those assembled wanted fewer or more Moroccans in the Netherlands. The chants of “Fewer, fewer, fewer” grew louder before Wilders quietened it with” We are going to take care of that.”

Muslim groups complained. In 2016, a Dutch court convicted Wilders of “inciting discrimination” against Dutch Moroccans, although the court declined to sentence him, ruling that “a criminal conviction was sufficient punishment for a politician.”

In Sweden, the “Web Hate Investigator” is a private vigilante mob funded to the tune of over half a million Swedish Kroner by the Swedish state. It was founded by a former police officer, Tomas Aberg. Meanwhile, police complain of lack of resources to investigate reported gang rapes. In 2017, Aberg’s organization reported 750 people for “web hate.” The average age was high—55, and reportedly, there were no young women. 14% of those reported went to trial. 77 were convicted of “hate crime.” Swedish law affirms that “incitement to hate” is a crime (even if there’s no call to violence).

One of Aberg’s victims was a 73-year-old woman who simply shared an allegorical post about a migratory Arabic bird in a Facebook group of 50 people. Another Swede, Christina, 65, was exposed by Web Hate Investigator as writing “Refuse all that has to do with Islam.” She denied writing it, but nevertheless, she was later reportedly assaulted by four migrants. The assault has impaired her memory. No one was convicted of the assault. Christina, now unable to work, receives no help from the State.

Denny Abrahamsson, a 71-year old Swedish pensioner, faced trial for calling Islam “a fascist ideology” on Facebook. If convicted, he faces two years in prison. This is what he had to say:

I hate no people. What I hate is [the] ideology, Islam. One can criticize fascism or Nazism, but why not Islam? Why should Islam have any protection status?

Denny was later acquitted, because the prosecutor failed to prove that Denny had written those words (implying that Denny was not entitled to express such opinions, whether true or false).

In Denmark, at journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard’s trial, the Danish Supreme Court opined that “the substance of the charges against Hedegaard—public criticism of Islam—is still a crime punishable by imprisonment.” But what if the critique is true? Unlike in properly-crafted defamation law, truth is not a defense under Article 266(b) of the Danish Penal Code.

In Germany, a new hate-speech law took effect in January 2018. Platform providers like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) face fines of up to 50 million euros ($60 million) if they don’t remove posts containing “hate speech” or “fake news” within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. German officials believe that “fake news” helped Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election in 2016.

In June 2017, Facebook said it removed 66,000 such posts every week. But who’s to decide what’s “fake news” or “hate speech”? Facebook uses an organization called Correctiv, a German fact-checking non-profit NGO, to decide whether reported stories are real or fake. But who sets the standards? The clues, as always, lie in the evidence.

Politically incorrect writers such as Douglas Murray had their articles censored. Journalist Robbie Travers questioned “Black Lives Matter” and his Facebook account was blocked. Ingrid Carlquist, who questioned migration into Sweden, had her account deleted. It was revealed that Facebook’s trend selectors were operating a political bias—banning people exposing jihadists, but allowing pages glorifying anti-police violence and pages promoting anti-Israeli terrorism.

Who Is Not Gagged? The Double Standards of “Hate”

In England, home to the Industrial Revolution, it was “revealed that Islamic hate literature—misogynistic and homophobic pamphlets and hate tracts endorsing the killing of apostates—is freely available on the bookshelves of British prisons. The hate literature is distributed to inmates by Muslim chaplains, who themselves are appointed by the Ministry of Justice.”

Western Europe, home to a people that once fiercely resisted Hitler’s relentless Luftwaffe bombs, is now set to be conquered by an ingeniously-designed set of words.

Western Europe, home to the Enlightenment, and to a people that once fiercely resisted Hitler’s relentless Luftwaffe bombs, is now set to be conquered by an ingeniously-designed set of words.

Will this be an epitaph to Europe in 2080? The Left’s subtle Luftwaffe slipped under the radar of a citizenry not cognizant of its classical liberal heritage; the people embraced the bombs of banning “hate speech” and “fake news”—the Trojan horse entered Europe. The rest is history.

Even in the U.S., where incitement to violence ought to be blocked, Kenneth Lawson (University of Baltimore School of Law) writes:

“Kill the Jews!” and “Kill the Americans!” are chants heard regularly in many Middle Eastern mosques. The incitement continues unabated to this day.

This kind of rhetorical incitement is no longer limited to Arab countries, but occurs regularly around the world, even in America.

Middle East scholar Raymond Ibrahim asserts: “Islam is the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions. Islamic hate of Jews, Israel, and all other religions knows no bounds.” Thus, Ibrahim concludes, criminalizing hatred of other religions would require the banning of Islam itself.

Even Iran needed an exemption from its own public chastity rules to avoid banning the Koran.

 

The Second Grenade: “Fake News”

“Fake news” is another neologism, explained by Wikipedia as a ‘type of disinformation created with the intent to mislead, or damage an agency, entity, or person for political or financial purposes.’ “The news is then often reverberated as misinformation in social media but occasionally finds its way to the mainstream media as well.”

In other words, it starts as disinformation, i.e., it’s intentional at source, and spreads virally as misinformation in social media. What used to be referred to as “yellow journalism” is now being called “fake news,” with one distinction being a shift of emphasis from “selling newspapers” to the additional “political gain.”

Educating Us to Stay Away from “Fake News”

UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO’s Constitution says: “Since wars begin in the minds of men and women, it is in the minds of men and women that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

That sounds wonderful, until we browse what UNESCO released in 2018—a handbook for education in journalism titled: Journalism, Fake News & Disinformation. One excerpt is particularly telling:

The purveyors of disinformation prey on the vulnerability or partisan potential of recipients whom they hope to enlist as amplifiers and multipliers. In this way, they seek to animate us into becoming conduits of their messages by exploiting our propensities to share information for a variety of reasons. A particular danger is that ‘fake news’ in this sense is usually free – meaning that people who cannot afford to pay for quality journalism, or who lack access to independent public service news media, are especially vulnerable to both disinformation and misinformation.

The UNESCO handbook purports to teach journalists how to fact-check among other things, and facilitates a worldwide sharing network of like-minded left-liberal media organizations. The number 1 cited case of disinformation? How Cambridge Analytica helped Trump win the 2016 U.S. presidential election and swayed the Brexit vote toward “Leave” with targeted ads.

But while there is a privacy issue in collecting and using personal data for targeting ads, the speech (the targeted ad) is not fake unless the advertisement contained false claims.

It is true that some people, blinded by their bias, become vulnerable to disinformation. But there is a grave danger in having standards for disinformation set by a State-influenced entity.

Claims and Counterclaims of Disinformation

Writing for Gatestone Institute, Dr. Denis MacEoin claims:

The anti-Israel dogmatists of whom I speak are not the denizens of the Arab, Iranian, and wider Muslim world, where hatred of Israel and support of the Palestinians is enforced by governments and clerics.

The lies about the State of Israel are amplified in the West through the “mainstream media”, such as: The New York Times, The New Yorker, the BBC, The Guardian, MSNBC, and CNN.

This is a claim that the standard-setting, left-liberal media are themselves purveyors of lies.

It is diversity, not only of opinion, but also of factual claims and counterclaims, which is the hallmark of a free press.

MacEoin agrees with Dr. Asaf Romirowsky, Executive Director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, who calls “Anti-Israelism” the modern face of anti-Semitism.

One cannot create a media source trusted by one and all. Indeed, it is diversity, not only of opinion, but also of factual claims and counterclaims, which is the hallmark of a free press.

The Defamation Protection

False allegations that are damaging can be countered by the law of defamation. Ideally, the onus should be on the defendant to prove what was said was true (truth is an absolute defense). Then the onus should shift to the plaintiff to show that the falsity was significantly damaging.

Say, if there was a bogus claim in a rag about the Clintons embezzling funds. The rag can be sued and required to establish the truth of the matter. The plaintiffs (in this case, the Clintons) would need to show the extent of damage (if falsity was demonstrated) as a result of the claim. Such a defamation framework should not distinguish between one who is a “public figure” and one who is not (as the U.S. framework unfortunately does). Only two tests should matter the most—is the claim false? If yes, is it damaging?

More importantly, opinions and facts belong to different categories. Only factual claims should be subject to a defamation claim, for “people [should] have the right to be bigots,” and must also have the right to express opinions held as wrong by others, including where such opinions fail the test of reality (such as the flat-earth belief system)

If a proper defamation framework penalizes the purveyors of damaging, false stories, why do we need this furor over “fake news”?

If a proper defamation framework penalizes the purveyors of damaging, false stories, why do we need this furor over “fake news”? Now ask yourself the question—even though opinions are not news, which opinions are being designated as “fake news”?

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), founded in 2015, bills itself as an independent online media outlet, dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices, as also the “most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet.”

What is MBFC’s verdict on one of the most eloquent, scientifically rigorous media sites on global warming, Watts Up with That?

  • * That its conspiracy level is “Strong,” only one level below “Tin Foil Hat.”
  • * That its “pseudo-science” level is also Strong, only one level removed from “Quackery.”

But how did the “independent expert” MBFC reach this conclusion?

“We rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent climate denialism propaganda.” There. An admission. They consistently promote a counterview. Surely that reeks of a conspiracy—let’s call it one below “Tin Foil Hat” (now that makes us look “independent”).

Give Me Fake News, and Nothing Else

“Hate speech” and “fake news,” concepts now armed with criminal penalties and heavy fines in multiple jurisdictions, have become the twin grenades launched against all who dare disagree with the established narrative on climate change, Islam, intrusive regulation, immigration etc. Despite the First Amendment fortress at law, the U.S. is also vulnerable via its campus speech restrictions, and because today’s digital “public square”—Facebook, Amazon, Google, YouTube, etc.—operates across multiple jurisdictions that dutifully block “hate speech” and “fake news” as defined by the liberal-left and totalitarian governments.

In effect, regulation against “hate speech” and “fake news” is a leftist ploy against free speech. Impeded by the redoubtable First Amendment in the U.S., the Left has found new devices to block well-reasoned and scientific opinions that oppose its orthodoxy. The devices have been deployed in legislation and regulation internationally, and across U.S. campuses.

The State should not become the watchdog over the fourth estate, which itself serves the function of a watchdog over the State. As Ayn Rand remarked:

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else.

I promise to wear a tinfoil hat while reading “The Daily Fake News.”

I wonder if we will reach the stage that a “fake news” stamp from the authorities will become a badge of honor for truth-tellers. Perhaps we shall one day see “The Daily Fake News” sold on newsstands. Count me as a subscriber if one does emerge. I promise to wear a tinfoil hat while reading it.

 

 

(Visited 740 times, 1 visits today)