It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Introduce Bills To Examine 'Hate Speech' on the Internet/Other Medias H.R. 3878/S.2219

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Watch out internet, here comes some "Hate Speech Legislation' .... 'hate speech' .... that's pretty fuzzy and open to interpretation. One person might call certain speech 'hate' whereas another would call it free speech and truth.

Senator of Mass Markey (D) and Rep Jeffries (D) Introduce Legislation to Examine and Prevent the Promotion of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech in Media

Boston (April 16, 2014) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced legislation to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes. ...

“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment,” said Senator Markey. “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”


PDF of the Hate Crimes Legislation Bill


‘‘(b) SCOPE OF REPORT.—The report required under
17 subsection (a) shall—
18 ‘‘(1) analyze information on the use of tele-
19 communications, including the Internet, broadcast
20 television and radio, cable television, public access
21 television, commercial mobile services, and other
22 electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent
23 acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as de-
24 scribed in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C.
25 534 note);


13 Democrats Offer Bill Demanding Government Study on Internet Hate Speech

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to "advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate."

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.


If I say on an internet chat site that Obama sucks - is that 'hate speech' that can incite crimes or is it just the truth? If I say on an internet chat site that Harry Reid is in cahoots with the Chinese and he is at fault for the attempted Bundy ranch takeover - is that 'hate speech' or is it just truth? If I say that John McCain should retire because he's a war monger - is that 'hate speech' or is it just the truth? If I say that I think Jack Chick is ignorant or that Islam is ridiculous or that the Vatican is Euro-centric and has no business telling America what to do with it's borders - is that 'hate speech' or is it just the truth? Answer - it's all truth but who gets to decide what is and what isn't as far as the law is concerned? And if telling the truth incites some people to violence, does that mean the truth can't be told? From what I see, according to this legislation .. it could.

edit on 4/21/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Scary stuff.

If I simply say that I do not like someone, there will be people out there ready to declare it 'hate speech'.... simply because they disagree with me.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: FlyersFan
If I simply say that I do not like someone, there will be people out there ready to declare it 'hate speech'.... simply because they disagree with me.


If I'm reading this correctly .... if you say you hate someone, then that could incite others to commit a crime against that person .... so you can't say you hate them. That's an extreme example, but the law COULD be used as an excuse by someone with an agenda to shoot down free speech on the internet. I can see it happening.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

This won't get far, just for show probably. One person's hate speech is just most people everyday commentary on the tea people. Eric Andre would take this bill and eat it on air, and offer pieces of it to passerbys, like a mother bird feeding its young.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
LOL

They better be hoping for a failure because they seem to be the biggest offenders !!!

I think this is more election year tactics to show how Oh-So "Concerned" they must be.

Standard "create the problem", then cast the grand illusion that they are the victims, then press the forward button to cast another illusion of a solution.

it's a classic psych-tactic.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Hate crimes are an abomination. We should never have gotten into the mindset that they are a special category of crime above and beyond the ordinary. It's basically trying to criminalize motive beyond intent. How can you really read a person's mind to truly divine their motive? And what makes some motives worse than others?

The end result, the crime, is the same no matter what motivated it.

If I get really angry because my husband cheats and I murder him, he's dead. A crime motivated by passion.

If he suddenly tells me that he's part Native American, and I can't stand knowing that because I'm a racist and I kill him, he's still every bit as dead. A crime motivated by racial prejudice.

Either way, the crime is murder. He's still just as dead. One motive does not make the end result any different than the other.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

I wonder if calling American citizens "Domestic Terrorists" is hate speech????

Nah, as much as I hate Dirty Harry this is about the most ridiculous attack on Freedom of Speech in the name of silencing your political opponents since the so called "Free Speech Zones"!

Anyhow, as long as we allow them to keep chipping away at our freedom, they will surely manage to take it all away...



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
To me, it's more like speech that encourages a violent crime. For example if you were to say, "let's get a group formed to figure out how we can assassinate Obama", or "every gay man needs to be raped and then dragged by a car across town." I think it is speech specifically designed to incite a violent act against a person or a group.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
I wonder if calling American citizens "Domestic Terrorists" is hate speech????

Oh man ... if you want to go there then how about Obama telling a group of hispanic democrats that republicans are 'the enemy'?? When the Commander in Chief tells a group of people that another group in the country is 'the enemy' ... is he looking to go to war against those people? What could that incite? (using the 'logic' of the legislation) This legislation could bite the dems in their collective backends ....



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
To me, it's more like speech that encourages a violent crime. For example if you were to say, "let's get a group formed to figure out how we can assassinate Obama", or "every gay man needs to be raped and then dragged by a car across town." I think it is speech specifically designed to incite a violent act against a person or a group.


There are already laws against that!

But hey, we have seen how Eric Holder fails to prosecute them....



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
That's a common sense application. But the wording is such that it could be used by anyone in government to shut down people they disagree with.

If I say that abortion is murder of an unborn child ... am I now inciting people to do violence against women who are going to abortion clinics? Pro-Choice politicians could say so.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: seeker1963
I wonder if calling American citizens "Domestic Terrorists" is hate speech????

Oh man ... if you want to go there then how about Obama telling a group of hispanic democrats that republicans are 'the enemy'?? When the Commander in Chief tells a group of people that another group in the country is 'the enemy' ... is he looking to go to war against those people? What could that incite? (using the 'logic' of the legislation) This legislation could bite the dems in their collective backends ....


LAWLZ......

I was just thinking of one example! Glad you found another one though



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Except where does it stop? At what point do we get ridiculous about it?

If I say "someone should kick his @ss," am I inciting violence? Most of the time, I'm not actually meaning that anyone should go out and beat up the person in question at all. It's just an expression of general frustration or disgust. But, I suppose someone could take it to mean I really want physical harm done to a person.

You have to be careful when you start wishing we can police other people's thoughts. It gets ugly.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

American culture is rife with idioms originating from weapons, war and violence.
Can a culture that celebrates violence, legislate hate and aggression? No.

Liberals can no more control hate than conservatives can stop progress.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I imagine "hate speech" will only be regarded as white on black "hate speech".

We all know only white people can be racist.
Also, how long until hate speech encompasses everything under the sun, up to and including, political dissidence.

This is where it starts. Find an excuse to get a foot in the door. Then add a whole lot of extras over time until BAM!!!!! Everyone is too scared to speak their minds online.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
"Why the U.S. government is 'trolling' jihadists on social media" - CNN


The initiative, already active across Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, would look to branch out to other social media where jihadists were active. "What about Ask.fm? What about Instagram? What about Pinterest?" said Fernandez. "In a way, we're mirroring or shadowing what they do."

Older article from 2012: Wired- See here

MSM sharing the trolling/shilling that goes on, interestingly so. Now with Harry Reid's labeling of Bundy supporters, combined with the OP info, guess there can only be more involvement in shillery action.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

Considering how Holder has not gone after real hate speech that could incite problems in the past - like when the Black Panthers put out a wanted dead poster on Zimmerman - you raise a good point.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join