Don’t Let the Libs Redefine Hate Speech

According to Wikipedia, “hate speech” is a term with various meanings and no single, consistent definition. Undaunted, Merriam-Webster took a stab at defining the phrase, calling it “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.”

O.K. So far, so good.

The Cambridge Dictionary gets a bit more specific, adding the following context: "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

“Expresses hate or encourages violence.” Most Americans would agree that encouraging violence is wrong, but the fact remains that expressing hate – while detestable – is still a constitutionally guaranteed right under the First Amendment.

But here is where the slippery slope toward Fascism begins.

The glaringly misnamed Encyclopedia of the American Constitution claims that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".

“Communications of animosity or disparagement”? You mean, if I say that, as a Yankees fan I despise the Red Sox, I am guilty of hate speech? What’s next? Can I be charged with hate speech by culinary colleges if I say that I don’t like mushrooms or that shrimp are best used as bait, not as appetizers?

Even worse, look what happens when liberal institutions such as the United Nations get involved. All of a sudden, the definition of hate speech changes ever-so-subtly.

The U.N. says that hate speech refers to “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” Wow… now anything I say that can be construed as offensive to another person or group is deemed as hate speech. After all, “social peace” is our #1 priority.

What the U.N. really means is that submission to the authoritarian elite is our top priority, and anyone who refuses to acquiesce will be demonized and squashed like a bug.

Look out, the P.C. police are coming!

Now that the Progressives have tried their best to silence conservatives, the religious right, and evangelical Christians in particular by attempting to redefine terms like “hate speech”, let me tell you what hate speech is NOT…

Telling someone that homosexuality is a sin is NOT hate speech. It is biblical truth (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:9-10; Jude 1:7) And doing so DOESN’T mean that you hate the person engaging in that particular sin. On the contrary, it means that you care enough about them to warn them of the spiritual consequences and to guide them to the truth… and the One who can set them eternally free.

Being pro-life and fighting to protect precious preborn children from being sacrificed on the altar of personal convenience is NOT hate speech. It is the very definition of LOVE speech.

Saying that men cannot give birth is NOT hate speech. It’s merely common sense. It is also a biological, medical, and scientific fact. The same goes for opposing biological men competing in women’s sports or using their restrooms and locker rooms. It’s not an anti-trans position… it’s a PRO WOMEN position.

Believing that transgenderism is a mental illness is NOT hate speech. In fact, until it caved into political pressure and went woke, the American Psychiatric Association classified “gender dysphoria” as a mental illness called “gender identity disorder” that could and should be treated with counseling and/or medication.

Citing Bureau of Justice Statistics figures that show that 63% of violent crimes in America are committed by black men or that roughly 90% of black murder victims are killed by black perpetrators is NOT hate speech, nor is it racist. To me, true racists are the ones who sugarcoat the problem instead of trying to identify its source (which, at least in part, is fatherless homes caused by out-of-wedlock births) and solve it.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

Hate speech is wrong but so is attempting to redefine the term to purposely limit our First Amendment right to express divergent opinions. That is how despots and totalitarian governments – from Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Putin in the Soviet Union to Adolf Hitler in Germany and Fidel Castro in Cuba – rose to power and maintained it.

Americans today are better than that and so were our Founding Fathers before us. They wouldn’t have stood for such coercive nonsense, and neither should we.