On Hate Speech

Do not accept the premise
​

I'm away this week and this has been on my mind: What is hate speech? Is anyone surprised that after accepting the premise of a hate crime, that there would be a call to prosecute “Hate Speech”? I’m surprised that it took this long. In some places in Europe there are laws against freedom of speech, but we have the first amendment. Unfortunately, many, including some members of congress are unaware of that. Is not the crime of murder, especially pre meditated murder, not sufficient to render a just punishment? Why is it worse if the person kills someone because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or even their political beliefs? Does it not seem strange how quickly some jumped to the conclusion, that the motives for the recent shootings in California, were hatred of Asian people? No need to wait for the facts when it comes to assigning “hate”. So, who among us is so virtuous and insightful, that we can be sure of the “hate’ in the heart of another? If my memory serves me, instead of a cacophony of calls for the prosecution of a hate crime, there was instead a misplacement of blame and silence when a deranged gunman set out to kill republicans, who were practicing for a baseball game. No hate there, I guess. (Do I really need to provide other examples?)
Recently Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a bill to criminalize “Hate Speech” which she defines as only she could, being one who has a great deal of experience in the matter. You can read about it here: https://www.foxnews.com/.../sheila-jackson-lee-introduces... and here: https://nypost.com/.../texas-rep-sheila-jackson-lee.../ Notice that the straw man she is fighting is the “white supremacist” boogieman, who resides comfortably and rent free, right between her ears. Are we as a free country going to allow the prejudice of one person or group to define what is allowable speech? Am I to pretend that those who live by the maxim, that speech can be violence, are virtuous or rational enough to decide what I am allowed to say? Does anyone, even the most die hard leftist, actually think that speech can be policed fairly or evenly? But more importantly; does accepting the premise of” hate crime and hate speech” actually cause more hate, division, animosity and group think tribalism than simply allowing others to show their true colors (like I have done with Ms. Lee) and to use John Rawls “vail of ignorance” to prosecute all crimes without prejudice and shun the ugly views of terrible people, countering their ideas, logic, and philosophy in a civil and rational manner. Sticks and stones…