Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rasmussen Poll Shows Only 53 Percent Of Respondents Believe We Should Refrain From Banning "Hate Speech"
The brainwashing of the Kwa is on track. The incessant campaigns against "hate crimes" and "hate speech" are unfortunately making headway amongst Americans.
So concludes a Rasmussen poll, the results of which were released on June 16th, 2008. Click HERE to read the full report. Initially, the poll shows that the overwhelming majority of respondents strongly guard their right to free speech.
However, when asked about hate speech, only 53 percent of respondents said the United States should refrain from banning so-called hate speech. Twenty-eight percent think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, while the remaining 19 percent are undecided. In this poll, hate speech was loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories.
But when pollsters asked if respondents would support hate speech bans if the government defined it, support for bans dropped precipitously. Only 11 percent would give government the power to ban "hate speech", while 74 percent would allow free speech without government interference rather than allow the government to define appropriate speech.
The poll also showed that women and blacks favored speech bans much more than men. White respondents opposed speech bans by a 57 percent to 24 percent margin.
Opponents of hate speech legislation argue that it violates Americans’ freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions.
America is one of the few nations in the world that still allows relatively unhindered freedom of speech, although we increasingly find that employers are allowing themselves to be used as proxy enforcers of political correctness. The recent experiences of KBFX's Woody and Wilcox in Anchorage are a grim reminder of how precarious our free speech rights are becoming. The so-called "advanced" nations of Europe have little respect for free speech; fourteen European countries have codified various restrictions on speech, in particular, Holocaust denial laws, and the European Union itself has crafted speech restriction laws which are applicable to all EU members who don't already have such laws. Click HERE to see Wikipedia's list.
And pastors are not necessarily protected by the pulpit against hate speech laws. LifeSite News reports that on Friday June 6th, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum. He was also commanded to pay damages equivalent to $7,000 as a result of the tribunal's November decision to side with complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund. The tribunal has also called for Boissoin to personally apologize to Lund via a public statement in the local newspaper.
The remedy order demands the pastor to pay $5,000 to Lund personally for the "time and energy" he has expended and for the "ridicule and harassment" he has faced. Combined with that financial burden, Boissoin must also pay up to $2,000 in expenses to one of Lund's witness, provided she produces records of such costs.
Boissoin was first hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's educational system.
Even the notoriously pro-gay Joe.My.God blog condemned the Commission's decision.
As Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval reminds us, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reasoned that the First Amendment protected all opinions, with the exception of speech “that produces or intended to produce a clear and imminent danger.” For example, inciting a riot is not protected by the First Amendment.
Barring incitement, speech has broad protections, and those protections represent an essential freedom in this country. “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Holmes wrote, “and that truth is the only ground which their wishes safely can be carried out.” In other words, free and protected speech allows for ideas to rise and fall based on their merit, not some arbitrary bureaucratic decision.
If one in four Americans would get their way and hate speech would be outlawed, who would decide what is protected and what isn’t? The answer, of course, is that government would make those decisions clearing the way for the political winds of the moment to overrule the God given rights of the people.
Visit the Truthtellers website and read Harmony Grant's essay on the top 11 reasons we should fight hate laws.