I would hate to say that
P.M. Cameroon’s desire to rule the free speech of the masses is crude, crass
and rash. In the Internet era people are far more threatened by those who would
put chains on free speech rather by those who use hateful speech. If Brits
can’t say ‘off with the King’s head’ what is the world coming to?
Without free speech could
the French have had their revolution or Jacobean reaction to guillotine the
rich? Without free speech what kind of protest would reform Wall Street and
Footsie financial flummery? If it were illegal to even talk about substantive
removal of rich elites from cat-bird seats of opportunity would the masses have
any effective means of reform?
Banning political speech in
country A would require that Internet speech in country B be censored too. If
one has a Sir Queen running for P.M. yet it would be considered hateful to
point out that a homosexual politician is queering and blackmailing his, her or
its way to the top, but they report that in observant country B-won’t the P.M.
need to cut the wire from country B to country A in order to protect the
delicate political sensitivity of his country A flock?
British efforts to censor
hit Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry a little earlier in history when democracy
was just getting started. Sometimes the Brits never change and revert to
imperial form. Taming down the hateful masses cannot substitute for poor
immigration policy or the right-to-revolt against institutional hatred of the
masses whereby every word from the lips of an oppressive ruler is hateful to
the oppressed receiving it.
Given the right incentives
such as Jacobite correction it is possible for economists and politicians to
keep a society in full employment, a good standard of living, conservation and
recovery of the ecosphere, a balanced budget and a narrow gap between the most
rich and the most poor in a society-without the proper incentives such as
decapitating failing leadership classes when economic indexes rise to
intolerable pre-set levels the elites just concentrate wealth and let business
go on as usual-that’s just the way it is sadly; the human condition has innate
greed, corruption and insatiable desire for immortal wealth for a mortal body
and of course they should instead be looking toward Jesus Christ.
The United States has for a century been malinfluenced by the Brits.
We should never have bailed them out in the First World War. If we had let the
war find a natural balance the Nazis and Second World War would never have
occurred like as not. American Presidents and Congress too often put themselves
into a Master-Blaster role of being the muscle for corrupt British P.M. brains
as Brits needed to recover from the loss of their imperial empire with American
military power. America should not send free speech down the way of the Buffalo course to oblivion. Free speech should roam free and
wild from border to border, sea to BP oil slickened shiny sea.
Across the globe there are
nations with censorship in place. Free speech is considered dangerous by establishments
that seek to retard change in order to conserve its place of power. The media
domination of broadcast media given by government to the wealthy is itself a
censorship of free speech of citizen pod cast user a priori-states should use
broadcast wavelengths with new technology for citizens pod cast time-slices. A
war to conserve free speech needs to be fought that finds new ways to increase
access of the masses to express it.
Hate speech lexicons defined
by establishment authorities necessarily conserve the power of those
authorities. Virtually anything can be marked as hate language with criteria
determined by the state or corporate authority and that is quite dangerous. A
writer might use one hate word variable per 5000 words of high quality material
and find the entire essay deleted-and that retards social development and
citizen participation as peers in society. How can neighbor A say to neighbor B
‘I have the right to limit what you say to words that are not hateful?” How may
a government implement speech controls through the rubric of hate speech
censorship and not be worthy of deletion itself?
The internet reaches more
than 180 nations-each with different ideas about what speech is hateful and
different constituencies with different opinions about what speech is hateful.
Keep in mind that words are just representative symbols with no implicit value
as sounds. It is only within a given culture that the meaning of a word can be
a referent to a designated object or event-process and be more than noise.
Cultural freedom to make noises with referent objects is requisite for a
better-than-simian social environment. Prime Minister Cameron is wrong to take Britain down the long and winding road to the chimp heaven
of state censorship. Every nation on Earth will need to convene to form a
standardized lexicon of hate speech words and phrases with translations into
every language in order that one may liberally ban the offending thousands of
words and lobotomize public thought effectively enough that the flock is free
from programmatic hate-speech by dissenters to hate Britain too.
In the United States the federal judiciary has made something of a
mockery of democracy with vetoes of state bans on homosexual marriage-bans that
were approved by popular vote in referenda. Democracy was subverted by
corporatist judicial appointees and homosexuals to prove the point that the
people can’t really have democracy except to be yes-persons to the will of the
elites. To change that situation would require changing the constitution-a
cumbersome, expensive process easily thwarted by concentrated wealth elites and
their corporatist political minions…they want to impose language bans of hate
speech too.
A better way that censorship
might be to compel diversity of opinion in public forums dedicated to just one
side-such as jihadist Britains that want to kill or maim parliament and napalm
Windsor Castle etc. It is illegal in most places to advocate crimes or to form
a criminal conspiracy to commit crimes, yet that is a long way from just hate
speech saying that Tories suck or Labor have their heads up their arses (I
don’t know the except British epithets for that sort of expression-to some that
want steak and eggs, fish and chips is hate speech). Britain could experiment with compelling extremist web sites
to have hyperlinks and windows to opposite opinion sites instead of censorship.
If Saudi Arabia required
anti-Jewish web pages to have windows with Jewish women in Professorial robes
taking about the dangers of global warming or whatever I imagine that some of
the hate speech of Jews would be defrapped (as the French Christine Leguard
defrapped things like the world monetary fund that were frapped by Dominique
Strauss-Khan). Christine LeGuard should run for Prime Minister of Britain and
defrappe that. Plainly free speech should be increase so that Internet
troglodytes trolling just a few websites as people tend to do experience the
grand vistas of the Internet-maybe Bing’s nice pictures and lose some of the
rabidity that Prime Minister Cameron fears might be hateful.
Brits sometimes are
impractical in their impecuniary political selections because of greed. The Depr River ought to be a joint Ukraine Russian waterway
peacefully facilitating regional and even global trade and commerce with
tax-free barge traffic for business large and small. Instead P.M. Cameroon
might prefer to have all of the Ukraine and run a British barge line on the Dnepr for use of
which the Russians would pay dearly. To be fair and balanced though, American
Senator Menendez wants to donate free weapons to the Ukraine P.M. Billionaire
Poor-o-shingle. One would think that establishing a new college of Guerilla training for Europe might be in store with the proven success of the American College for Guerilla training in Syria and Iraq . Senator McCain might like to set up a bombing range
in the Ukraine area generally. He is a guy good to have on your
side when the foe attacks.
Hate speech censorship seems
like an anachronistic trick more suitable for Catherine the Great and Radischev
or other prior eras before the Internet was invented by Al Gore. Not only may
radio talk about droopery in private pictures taken by defunct newspapers such
as The Guardian, they report that hackers have got into Apple’s private
accounts and taken nude pictures of celebrities and posted them on the
Internet. They also said that anyone posting them (such as in Namibia ) will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
in that jurisdiction of corporatism when the N.S.A. catches them.
Concentrating wealth through
corporatism gradually evolves a stagnant society with wealth given over to
uncreative heirs reinvesting in an existing, ossifying establishment. The
acceleration of the velocity of money through globalization and networking
reinforced with theories in support of market fundamentalism will petrify
social liberty, economic innovation and prohibit critical political change to
reply to environmental threats in a way satisfactory to the majority of the
people with a minority of global capital and political power. Concentration of
wealth and political power to prohibit free speech may bring about the end of
human life on earth, and I for one, would hate that.