MSU Students Want Hate Speech Defined
Demonstrating once again the danger of hate speech laws, the Michigan State University Student Assembly voted Thursday (Feb. 21) to ask the administration to define the difference between free speech and hate speech.
MSU President Lou Anna Simon has been adamant that free speech is “at the heart of academic freedom.”
He’s right.
The problem: a string of conservative speakers hosted by MSU’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, one of them being the head of an unnamed civilian group of volunteers who patrol the U.S.-Mexican border, triggered protests and a few arrests. Making matters worse, the pro-hate speech law protesters justify their hostility (which looks in and of itself like a “hate crime”) by referring to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s identification of the MSU Young Americans for Freedom as a “hate group.”
Yet, many a conservative organization, for decades, has defined the Southern Poverty Law Center as a radical pro-communist group, motivated by an anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-Christian hate doctrine. I wonder who’s right about who?
The resolution to this problem is multi-faceted, beginning with the abolition of all “hate laws,” (since we should all be free to be motivated by whatever emotions, ideologies, or paradigms we choose – and who can judge what’s really going on in our minds anyway – it’s only our attacks on the lives, liberties, and property of others that ought to come under legal scrutiny); next, with the sending home of all those congressmen and senators who have supported those laws; third, with the abolition of the federal Department of Education; and finally, with the passing of legislation from Congress that limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court away from public and private education.
Centralized control of the nation’s school system (and for that matter, state school systems) is one of the greatest enemies of freedom known to man, that’s why Marx favored it in his Manifesto. Do it, and you might as well say goodbye to free speech in academia.
We have done it. And we’ve paid the price. The time for change has come.
PS. Young Americans for Freedom is a student organization founded under the inspiration and guidance of William F. Buckley Jr. in 1960, to help give balance to the one-sided, pro-leftist approach to education that was already plaguing academia back then. Our prayers go with this Young Americans for Freedom chapter that they may continue to be free to balance the discussion of any issue, and with Michigan State University, that they may see how Un-American, and freedom of speech crushing, hate speech laws are.
Hate is wrong, and it is my faith that we will all one day be held accountable for our thoughts, as well as our actions; but wisdom dictates that the laws of men punish our deeds, not our thoughts. Hate speech laws are too open to political manipulation.
Steve Farrell is editor in chief of Stiff Right Jab, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and a pundit with America’s News Page, NewsMax.com.
Liberty Letters editor Steve Farrell is a pundit with America's Newspage, Newsmax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose." | More from Steve Farrell
Stumble It!
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
As long as you target the appropriate groups for denigration:Men, Christians, Conservatives and whites, you really don’t have to worry about it being charged with hate speech so what’s the concern? Those people really shouldn’t be on campus anyway, what have they ever contributed to American culture that’s worth keeping anyway?
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Asking for a definition is a bit like asking Ms Dracula which blood group she prefers.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:03 am
It’s quite good to hear them demanding an actual definition. That way they cannot flip-flop as it suits them….
Plus, it will put their policies under scrutiny. ANd set up themselves for potention liability if it is nothing else BUT freedom for all speech!
TMOTS
February 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The problem with restricting speech is the group allowed the authority to decide what is and isn’t protected versus censored speech. We have only to look at other countries restrictions on speech to see what will eventually happen if we censor speech for being unpopular, provocative, or offensive. The people making the distinctions will slowly but surely prohibit all speech they dislike. And our First Amendment will be dead along with the rest of the Constitution.
Our form of government was designed to protect individual liberty, not the collective group rights of marxist thought. Group rights never protected rights for any individual.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Hate speech is the language that the first amendment was designed to protect. language that people do not like. no reason given, just that they dont like it and it isnt slander… its protected.
after all, who needs an amendment to protect the language you like?
February 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“The resolution to this problem is multi-faceted, beginning with the abolition of all hate laws…and finally, with the passing of legislation from Congress that limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court away from public and private education.”
Badabing, badabang, badaboom! Problem solved.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I agree with Amfortas and Mark, asking for a definition from these folks is not the answer – even if the answer, for now, were a good one. Law needs to keep its focus on prosecuting those whose actions infringe upon the rights of others.
Motives, on the other hand, traditionally are taken into account in only one place in the law, the sentencing phase of trials. The Constitution refers to this as equity, and contrasted with the law. The Constitution says of the courts: “The Judicial power of the United States, both in law and equity, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Again, equity is applied, during the sentencing phase, i.e.: “Okay, we’ve proved he killed the guy … but it was a crime of passion, or self-defense, or he was insane, or drunk, or afraid, or too young, or just plain reckless, let there be mercy;” or on the other hand, it could go the other way, the prosecutor claiming that “it was premeditated, motivated by a deep hatred for this or that, or him or her, let there be no mercy.”
If I understand law vs. equity properly, the full brunt of the law applies unless the court may find extenuating circumstances, and if so, a more lenient sentence may be imposed. But not stiffer penalties, and an entire different set of laws for motives; which will then, as we are seeing, go after free speech as a result.