This blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Hate Speech, Extremism, and the Christchurch Call
Are Zuckerberg et al. against speech expressing hatred for the likes of Hitler and Stalin? Or is this speech, which expresses hatred, somehow not “hate speech”? And if it is “hate speech,” shouldn’t it nevertheless be applauded—because it’s right to hate the hateful?
In seeking to prohibit “hate speech,” do Zuckerberg et al. want Hitler and Stalin not to be hated? Do they want the relatives of all those who were gassed or starved to death not to hate Hitler and Stalin, but themselves go joyously into gas chambers or eat grass and tree bark?
The enemies of hate speech as such, are the friends of the hateful, by virtue of protecting them from the wrath of mankind.
Furthermore, if “hate speech” were abolished, what would the Marxists have left to say? They could no longer express the hatred in such claims as that capitalists are “exploiters” and thieves and thus deserve to be robbed and murdered. The Marxists would literally be speechless
And the Democrats in the US would have very little to say, for they could no longer espouse either Marxism or bogus charges of racism.
For more, read my essay “The Moral Necessity of Discrimination and Hate Speech.” It accompanies my “Capitalism: The Cure for Racism” and “The White “Privilege” Scam.” All three are available together for one low price of 99¢ at amzn.to/2Hcquv9
Locke and Jefferson were both “extremists”—extremists in support of individual rights and freedom. Hitler and Stalin were both “extremists”—extremists in the violation of individual rights and freedom.
These two pairs have nothing fundamental in common. In all fundamental respects they are polar opposites, which is why Ayn Rand labeled “extremism” an “anti-concept.” See her essay “Extremism, or The Art of Smearing” in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.” At amzn.to/2W7fXJQ
Such ignorance is what is present in the “Christchurch Call,” a poisonous stew of ignorance and stupidity, enthusiastically supported by the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the President of France, that if adopted will destroy the freedom of speech on the internet.
It uses the actions of a murderous lunatic as the pretext for a horde of nincompoops deciding what can and can’t be said on the internet. Join me in expressing hatred for it and everything that stands behind it.
Join me also in expressing gratitude for the existence of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, in particular its First Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech in making it illegal to enact legislation that abridges the freedom of speech.
Finally, join me in expressing thanks for an administration that refuses to join other countries in the massive violation of the freedom of speech that the “Christchurch Call” represents.
The full text of the Christchurch Call appears at bit.ly/2JLWsQj. It opens with the words: "Seventeen countries and eight tech companies have in Paris agreed on a
text designed to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online....."
Given the complete and utter absurdity of the concept “extremism” and also
the vagueness even of the word “violent,” this is a clear call for censorship.
If someone doesn’t like your “content,” it won’t be allowed on the internet.
You won’t have a website.
The “Christchurch Call” is nothing but a conspiracy in restraint of freedom
of speech and of trade. Applied in America, it would be in violation both of
the US Constitution and the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits “conspiracies
in restraint of trade.”
It would also be in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private
individuals from engaging in the making of foreign policy. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act)
The tech giants that have signed this treaty should be aware that they may
have opened themselves to massive lawsuits and, conceivably, even to charges of
treason. For that is the meaning of conspiring with foreign powers to nullify
an essential feature of the US Constitution.
Certainly, the stockholders of these giant companies should know that their
managements may be creating the basis for their companies being the target of the world’s first trillion-dollar lawsuit. And certainly, the stockholders should let their
managements know that they know.