U.S. HR 1913…

Date: June 16, 2009

Firstly, to address the question of what is, HR 1913…

This was a bill in congress, which recently passed…

The “feel good” slant on it, is that this type of law is allegedly going to curtail Matthew Shepard, type murders/assaults…and other forms of discrimination, fostered and promoted by people, and groups, who have an obsession with targeting others, and using speech to construct a dehumanising effect…thus, em-bolding others to act in violence and aggression, against their chosen target.

In short, it claims to have the authority, to prosecute [and potentially incarcerate] anyone that acts in malice, to smear other people…in an attempt to cause a socialised aggression, or even just “lone wolf” assaults, against them.

Now, of course…in the real world, where we have a myriad of complexities…this law is a nightmare waiting to happen.

What constitutes “hate speech”, is amongst the critical questions…

…also, how do we determine, when this “hate speech” is manifesting itself?

Some people claim, that “hate speech” can be merely politically incorrect speech…or, controversial speech…Which, puts people like myself, in a ridiculous position, where for doing nothing more than promoting human rights, and speaking out on difficult topics in a calm and measured manner…”I” could be targeted, and smeared even more than I typically am currently, and more importantly, censored, fined, imprisoned, etc, etc…under the false pretext, that “I” am a purveyor of “hate speech”…when nothing could be more clearly farther from the truth…

…and if that happened, I would have grounds on which to claim, that smearing me in such a manner, is, itself, “hate speech”.

We also have the problem, that individuals and groups who clearly do promote “hate speech”, are going to morph their own behaviors, in order to conceal it…

…which herds us all into the incredible mess, of trying to distinguish when conversation about a group, or topic, is literally intended as “hate speech”, versus when it is all “sincere” discussion of a topic…and having to suppose, what the author was originally thinking, when he/she wrote the text in question…or spoke it.

Suddenly, the websites that list the names, addresses, etc, etc, of doctors who perform abortions, can repackage themselves, as “resources for women in need”, become more discrete…but, essentially, continue on, disseminating information…for the vigilantes to deal their own idea of “justice”.

How will legitimate “abortion resources” sites fare in all of this?…That is a perfectly fair, and necessary question, after all.

The question begs to be asked…

How do we even define the term “hate speech”, in any way that is not subjective, or left to exploitative interpretation?

Anyway…I am going to post a short series of things that I have written, in response to U.S. HR 1913, in the next several, following posts…It may be a bit dis-conjoined…but, it all fits together.

Tell Us What You Think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.