This is bogus. The author is the only one who calls 'it' 'hate speech'.
The actual examples given in the bullet points are either a) private institutions or b) isolated cases in foreign countries. I'd hardly say the law in some countries against holocaust denial justify panicking, and the author is an idiot for citing the David Irving case - Irving is a dickhead.

Just more 'liberal conspiracy' myth-making.

Irving may be a dickhead, but even dickheads should have the right to express their opinions, no matter what they are, or how erroneous they may be. After all, you seem to like the freedom to do so.
As for the idea that this could be seen as 'isolated cases in foreign countries', this is not that isolated in this country, there have been several cases nationally, the 'private institutions' are worse, because most of those cases do not get publicity. Just try letting your supervisor see you responding in kind to one of Ghost's 'jew' comments on here and see if you don't get ,at least, 'counselled' about your behaviour, especially if said comments are taken out of context, as such things often are.

There are other populations besides the wage slave and racist provocateur--there are cases where child molesters have been further punished for their 'journal entries' showing some sick fantasies. I also recall some school kids getting in trouble for writing some BS about killing teachers or what not.

The miami 'terruriss' are almost in this category--they felt that way and even tried to act out on it. That whole entrapment business is a great problem to have--Here there was no attempt made to act out; the crime is thought. The actions are speech.

This is nothing 'liberal' here, this is draconian thought enforcement. Senatard Macarthie persecuted people for their beliefs, Regan killed for ideology; these bastards of 'proper thoughts' are all the same.

To be loki-like [ugh] the society that enforces rules against people's words is a doomed enterprise that can only bring oppression and deserves contempt.

You got some good points , P. Phil
No one segment's got a lock on repression of free speech.
Look to the last Bush campaign, where protesters were outta sight, outta mind, or jailed.
In Canucklia, P.M. Weasel won't even let his cabinet ministers talk to the press , and, at least tried to ban news coverage of CDN homecomings of CDN soldiers in Afghanistan,who've been killed.
I don't know if he succeeded, with the last one,or not.

Dragonstaff,
Unfortunately, pvt. institutions can do whatever they want that way, like the woman, in Seattle, who pasted a pic up on her cubicle of coffins from Iraq being unloaded, after Bush got persnicketty about it.
She got fired for it.
Pvt. business is sort of it's own little country that way.
A Fascist lean is the norm.

The point can always be made that society at large is prudish. But compare what you haer on the TV with what you might have 20 or 30 years ago. The author's arguments come over more like whining than making valid arguments. What I meant by 'isolated incidents' is that he's cherry-picking, and expects his audience to just take his word for it that there is a trend.

As far as there not being anything 'liberal' here, I quote the article:
Here in the United States, leftists often decry what they see as censorship emanating from the right, when in fact most of the true silencing of speech has come from within their own ranks.

This author has an axe to grind, and I question his motives for writing it.

Fuck the author, he/she/it is inconsequential. Like the very fascists and liberruls, or conservatiks we must persecute the IDEA not the person.

That's the thread. Ad hominems aside, we have a real axe to grind when the idiots in power [be they on 'our' side or the 'other side'] start repressing speech because it brings up uncomfortable discussions. [why I love this site and all the shitheels within]

If you read the piece so carefully, you would note that even Irving's detractor did not like the 'win' by censorship. It stands to reason that those who supress information for fear of what it says are the real enemies be they of any gradient in the rainbow of social constructs.

It's a cheap trick and a low blow to punish people for what they say instead of proving through argument, fact or reason that the idea is the problem and person misguided.

Persecuting ideas is not recommended, Phil.

Yeah, it might lead to discussions and these discussions might lead to enlightenment.

Wrong: discussions might lead to enlightenment; persecution leads to oppression. You are so convinced you're right, you would become the person you love to hate.

You cannot love hatred.

I am ruthless, as are you, in the persecution AND oppression of ignorant fuckery--and you only think you are right as do I--the key activity being thinking not belief.

Forgive my misplacement of your emotions around the concept of 'persecution' as I was speaking metaphorically about using our mental faculties like oppresive regimes use their para-miltary appartus.

Yes. Love is only the morbid delapidation of oppresion we direct at ourselves--only on a profound yet unassuming level. Our actions only mirror our hungers--exempified by an ever-present need to form groups of contempt based origins. Forgive me, Santa has no presents for us under the Christmas tree this year. Never question mans ticklish underbelly.

It stands to reason that information is fear drained into a dog dish of social mores. The real enemies may be any transposed figure in the indelible wall social stratum. :CONFUSEDSHADES:

count/pointercount

Jane, you ignorant slut!

I am the walrus