“Inciting Hatred” Excuse to Repeal First Amendment

A leftist blog recently ran the headline, “Sarah Palin Incites Hatred By Lying About President Obama’s Hiroshima Speech.”

Palin, like a lot of people, criticized Obama for going to the site of Hiroshima, where the U.S. dropped a nuclear bomb in World War II, and acting remorseful.

The blogger claimed that Palin was lying. However, this misses the point. It doesn’t matter what Obama did or did not say in his speech. The very fact he went there and acted remorseful is itself an apology.

But that’s not the main issue. The main issue here is an accusation of “inciting hatred.” That’s how leftists are paving the way to curbing and ultimately eliminating freedom of speech in America. (I say leftists because I am not aware of conservatives, Republicans, libertarians or others on “the right” doing so.)

It goes like this: If you criticize someone or something a leftist likes, you’re guilty of lying. If you’re lying, you’re committing fraud to incite hatred. Hatred is a bad thing, and leads to clearly illegal things like murder.

Disagreement is lying. Lying is fraud. So they’ve got you that way, if necessary. And if that doesn’t work, dissenting opinion will be called “hatred” – or more ominously, “inciting hatred.” That’s the same as inciting violence, so they can outlaw your speech that way.

The implication of this headline is that by making claims leftists do not like, you’re inciting hatred. Couldn’t the same be said of the leftist blogger? By criticizing Palin, and not really telling the whole truth about her point, couldn’t conservatives claim that the blogger is inciting hatred against Palin? Yes, logically. But it will never happen. Even suggesting such a logical point will itself be labeled inciting hatred by that mentality.

The issue runs deeper than partisan politics. It has to do with freedom and liberty themselves, based on free will. According to the “inciting hatred” mindset, people can force you to think or react a certain way by what they express. If Sarah Palin says something an Obama supporter does not like, then she’s victimizing people the same way a thief or a murderer victimizes people. The overwhelmingly obvious evasion here? A thief or a murderer initiates force against you. Sarah Palin is merely expressing an opinion. She’s not imposing force on anyone. And you’re free to reject or challenge her opinion, as the leftist blogger proves.

The most dangerous idea afoot today is this claim of “inciting hatred.” It has been used against Donald Trump by everyone who dislikes him. The idea is that Donald Trump incites violence and hatred by saying controversial things, such as the fact that most politicians are amoral idiots (they are), and that Islam is not a religion of peace (it isn’t). But it really does not matter whether Trump’s critics are right about him, or not. They are free to accept or reject what he has to say, because no opinions—regardless of their content or the manner in which they’re delivered—are acts of force.

Leftists like this blogger would have us believe that the criticism of leftist opinions is an act of force. They don’t come right out and say it – yet. But they imply it when they claim that expressing anti-leftist opinions “incite violence.”

If it’s true that unpopular or politically incorrect opinions actually incite violence, which is illegal, then we’re only one step away from the real deal: Making incorrect speech itself illegal.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1

Dr. Hurd is now a Newsmax Insider! Check out his new column here.