Christian Science Monitor reports fun-loving German legislators approved a law cracking down on “hate speech” online because it’s hurtful, hateful and rude. But they didn’t stop there and also included what they called “fake news” because it could confuse people and make them stupid and stuff. Just what constitutes fake and hate is entirely up to the government but we have to assume they’re experts since politicians are fake and we hate ’em. Finally, Germans will put an end to all that.
Justice Minister Heiko Maas issued a statement we would expect from the “East” part of Germany when there was an East Germany, and said “Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins” so “STFU” or else. Germans need more justice with a little less speech, but don’t we all “smh” “lol?” Now if someone were to say on Facebook that Angela Merkel makes Hillary look like a supermodel, that should constitute “hate” but the interesting part, from a legal perspective, is would it be “fake?” Some poor bureaucrat will have to compare and contrast lots of photos of both. Who wears the pants suits worse, whose cheeks sag the most, etc. Which husband looks more fed up. Terrible task but it would have to be done to get to the bottom of fake and we all hate fake unless it’s legal to do so.
Heiko Maas also said that hate crimes are up 300% and most if not all are directed at Islamic refugees. In the past if, say, a Mr. Heinz punched a Mr. Hasenstasen in the face that would be a simple assault charge. But today if that same Mr. Heinz punched a Mr. Azaadi, well, obviously he “hates” the guy. If Mr. Hasenstasen were German Protestant, what’s there to hate? That would be absurd. But in Mr. Azaadi’s case it stands to reason that it’s because of his religion. But is there something about Muslims that makes it a given that they are hated?  I think if I were a German Muslim I would be insulted by the premise. Can’t I just get punched in the face like anyone else, equally? I’d prefer to be hated on my own accord.
But this is the logical extension of hate crime laws. A person can get charged with a hate crime because of what the person thought before the crime. The hate part is criminal thinking. Well, why wait for the crime, really? Let’s prosecute the hate before there’s a crime, it’s already a crime in a way. But you can’t prosecute anyone not white for a hate crime, why? Because that would be absurd.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
There are some in America that want to prosecute hate speech. This movement has gained a lot of currency from academic circles primarily from professors with a splash of really weird students with holes all over their faces and arms that look like comic books. They think people hate them. Should I say ‘I don’t get it’ or maybe concede they have a point?
This obsession with hate kicked into gear during the Obama administration just as the idea of fake news is popular today. The left didn’t like opposition to the president and considered it racial hatred. If you didn’t like Obamacare or him spying on news services or any of that, you weren’t being honest and they assumed it was all about his race. Maybe we should have asked why that would be the case? What were they seeing that no one else did?
Related:
- CAIR: Muslims faking hate crimes because Trump makes them mentally unstable
- Message telling liberal students to ‘suck it up’ investigated as ‘hate crime’
- Ebony magazine editor: Hate crimes can’t be committed against whites, cops
- Pelosi: ‘How dare’ Republicans criticize liberal hate speech before shooting — Video
- Twitter: Tweet supporting Joe Arpaio for head of Border Security hate speech
If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.
And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book:
