Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Conclusion & Afterthoughts

[NOTE: This concludes the series on hate and "hate speech". We might re-touch on it in the future; given how much hate is being spewed by race-mongers and talking heads, I'm sure there will be more to discuss, and probably sooner rather than later. As always, comments and tips are welcome.]

Wow. What a ride, huh?

Let's do a quick recap, and then sum up.

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 3

[NOTE: At this point in the series, I've said most of what I needed to say and what I felt needed to be said. I will likely wrap it up next week [UPDATE: Conclusion is up.]. Part 1 here, Part 2 here. This installment will focus on the "speech" aspect of "hate speech".]

Much ado has been made the past couple weeks, over whether "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment. This, to my mind, clouds the issue. It's not relevant to the discussion about the failed "jihadi" attack in Garland, Texas.

I will repeat that, because it bears repeating. A discussion on First Amendment protections — or the lack thereof — for "hate speech" is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the failed "jihadist" attack in Garland, Texas.

Offensive? Possibly, but still not a call to murder.
Translated: "100 lashes, if you're not dying of laughter!"
(source: Huffington Post)

It's irrelevant because a cartoon contest, even if it features satire, ridicule, or other material which sheds a less-than-favorable light on Islam and their "prophet" Mohammed, is still just a cartoon contest. It is not, and should never be taken as, a call to murder someone for holding a point of view opposite the subject of the satire or ridicule. Put simply, being the butt of someone's joke, while sometimes upsetting, doesn't ever rise to the level of an acceptable reason for killing him or her.

To be honest, it's hard to believe that simple truth can be called into question so easily. But it has, and now we have to deal with the fallout.

Click through to continue reading.

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 2

[NOTE: This is a continuation of the series of thoughts and reflections on hate and "hate speech". This part was loosely inspired by this article by David French at the National Review. Part 1 of my series can be found here.]

In the last installment, I talked about the failed jihadi attack on a free speech event in Garland, Texas, on May 4, and the American media's meltdown and cognitive dissonance in using their First Amendment free speech rights to attack event organizer Pamela Geller's First Amendment free speech, free association, and free assembly rights.

This time, I'm going to talk about hate itself. It won't be politically-correct, but as I put it last time, I think some things just need to be said.

So if you get nothing else out of this, take this one concept: Some things in this world are worthy of hate. Some things in this world deserve to be hated. Some things in this world are so vile, so evil, and so despicable, that hating them is not a bad thing; it's a virtue.

Like I said, it's not politically-correct, but it's true.

More below the break…

Thoughts on Hate and "Hate Speech" — Part 1

[NOTE: This began as a single post of tangentially-related thoughts on "hate speech" stemming from the incident in Garland, Texas, but grew and evolved until even the term "uber-post" couldn't quite describe it. I've decided to make it into a series of as-yet-unknown length. Bear with me a bit.]

So as everyone who doesn't live under a rock (and probably some who do) has heard, on Sunday, May 4, there was a kerfuffle in Garland, Texas, wherein a couple of self-styled Islamic jihadis from Arizona (of all places) attempted to arm themselves and storm a Free Speech event featuring a "Draw Mohammed" contest, in order to kill all the "offensive" cartoonists for the "crime" of daring to … well … draw Mohammed.

Charlie Foxtrot wrote on it here.

Thanks to the quick actions of a Garland PD officer already on-site, the idiot "jihadis" didn't even make it in the door before being put down by well-placed .45 ACP hollow points. They only managed to shoot an unarmed security officer. In the ankle. And he was released from the hospital the same night.

Pamela Geller (source: NBC News)

Cue the mainstream media, which not only tried its level best to remove the "Islamic jihadi" angle from the story, but then proceeded to attack event organizer Pamela Geller for daring to host such a "provocative"* and "offensive" event, and claimed that she brought the consequences on herself.

Yep. The media, which makes its living on the First Amendment and free speech, blamed the victim for her own attempted murder for — get this — exercising her First Amendment right to free speech and encouraging others to do the same. They're calling it "hate speech" and some (Chris Cuomo in particular) claim "hate speech" is not protected under the First Amendment. Unlike, you know, jihad and Sharia law.

The Irony Fairy was unavailable for comment.

That's the slightly-cynical re-hashing of the events. What follows below the break (because it's fairly lengthy to have it all on the front page) are some thoughts I've had on the topic since. Some of them are not politically-correct, but they need to be said anyway (and that's the beauty of the First Amendment, is it not?).