Skip to main content

Definition of Hate Speech

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

Love Lives Here

Love Lives Here

Origin of Hate Speech

A woman from New Jersey named Holly Smith put a sign in her yard that reads, “Love lives here: Love of God, family, friends, country, community, & the U.S. Constitution.” Her progressive neighbors claim the sign is hate speech. A public proclamation of love spurred accusations of hate. Let that sink in.

Communists created the concept of hate speech in the Soviet Union. It is the child of 'political correctness,' also invented by the Soviets. The idea is that the Communist Party will formulate the 'correct' opinions that all must hold and mouth. Any who express an opinion not endorsed by the Party will be subject to an Inquisition for communicating 'politically incorrect thoughts'—Hate Speech—and punished.

In America today, hate speech is any utterance disapproved by Democrats. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of free countries, but the first liberty totalitarian tyrants smash.

If ‘hate speech’ ought to be banned because it incites violence, which is the excuse given by the Left, then every book and tract written on behalf of Socialism from Marx to Black Lives Matter should be banned on behalf of the 100,000,000 innocent souls its ideas murdered and the one billion it enslaved through hateful violence.

Frederick Douglass Quote on Free Speech

Frederick Douglass Quote on Free Speech

Conformity is the Concept: Thomas Sowell

Progressives now define what we may say or write, what we may hear or read. In line with its usual use of euphemism, it claims to do so in the name of ‘diversity and inclusion’ when its true purpose is to exclude diversity of thought.

The greatest intellectual alive today, Thomas Sowell, explains: “While advocacy of homosexuality, for example, is common on college campuses, and listening to this advocacy is often obligatory during freshman orientation, criticism of homosexuality is called ‘hate speech’ that is subject to punishment. While spokespeople for various racial or ethnic groups are free to vehemently denounce whites as a group for their past or present sins, real or otherwise, any white student who similarly denounces the sins or shortcomings of non-white groups can be virtually guaranteed to be punished if not expelled. Even students who do not advocate anything can have to pay a price if they do not go along with classroom brainwashing.”

Free Speech was Fought for by the Left. Once They got it, They Set About Denying it to Others

Free Speech was Fought for by the Left. Once They got it, They Set About Denying it to Others

Why the Left Hates Free Speech: Dennis Prager

“Let us begin with this fact: The Left always suppresses speech. Since Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, there has been no example of the Left in control and not crushing dissent.

“The Left controls universities. There is little or no dissent allowed at universities. The Left controls nearly every ‘news’ medium. There is little or no dissent in the mainstream media — not in the ‘news’ sections and not in the opinion sections. The Left controls Hollywood. No dissent is allowed in Hollywood.

“Why does the Left need to crush all dissent? This is a question made all the more stark because there is no parallel on the right: Conservatives do not shut down dissent or debate.

“Race-baiters such as Ibram X. Kendi or Ta-Nehisi Coates or White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo would never debate Larry Elder, for example. Why won't they? Because they would be shown to be the intellectually shallow purveyors of hate they are. Deep down, they know it. Larry Elder is one of many conservative black intellectuals who left-wing blacks (and whites) refuse to debate. Now you know why the Left suppresses free speech: because they have to.” ~ Dennis Prager

Big Brother Watches Every Thing You Say

Big Brother Watches Every Thing You Say

Jordan Peterson Speaks Out

Professor Jordan Peterson opposes hate speech laws. His opposition stems from what he has observed about the kind of people who desire to serve as censors of the thoughts and words of others. They enjoy wielding totalitarian power. What could be more total than to control what people can think and say? They crave the authority of the Inquisitor to hunt down, expose, and punish heretics. They are themselves filled with hatred towards those who think differently. Who else would want such a job?

Suppression of Speech is the Road to Tyranny

Suppression of Speech is the Road to Tyranny

Research by the Cato Institute

The Cato Institute conducted the most extensive research into American attitudes towards hate speech. It shows that an astonishing 40% of Americans have been sufficiently brainwashed by our education system that they want to prohibit free speech. Paradoxically nearly three-quarters oppose political correctness. Two-thirds believe our education system fails to instill proper admiration for free speech. The confusion stems from the fact that 82% think we cannot ban hate speech—even if they want to—because no one knows what it is.

The only people who feel sure what it is are progressive Democrats. When they are asked to give examples of hate speech, 90% of them say “homosexuality is a sin” (as God in the Holy Bible unequivocally states); 80% agree that “illegal immigrants should be deported” qualifies; 59% believe "transgender people have a mental disorder” is hate speech.

Fifty-nine percent of progressives believe it should be a crime to call a man a man if he wants to be called a woman. Two-thirds of them also believe in the preposterous notion that “speech is violence.”

Scroll to Continue

I find it interesting that women are far more likely—50% more likely—to favor censorship than men.

Cato Insitute: What is Hate Speech

Cato Insitute: What is Hate Speech

Facebook Censorship

In the fascinating article in Salvo ‘How Facebook’s Censorship Engine Became Anti-Christian,’ writer Robin Phillips notes, “Facebook has gradually been amassing an army of content moderators. Fifteen thousand people now decide what should and should not be seen. At a time when the worldview of millions of people is mediated by digital information, content moderation is no trivial matter. These content moderators may well be some of the most powerful men and women in the world today.”

Facebook has always claimed to be politically neutral and pledged not to censor anyone based on their beliefs. That changed after the election of President Trump, an event Big Tech promised: "will never happen again."

So, for the first time, in 2017, Facebook announced it would begin to censor 'hate speech.' And it defined it for us: "Anything that directly attacks people based on what is known as their 'protected characteristics,’ race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

Facebook expanded the definition in July 2021. Now users are prohibited from posting “speech critical of concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics. Protected characteristics include race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, and serious disease."

In practice, this means you cannot write anything that a protected group member might find insulting. It does not mean you cannot post things because they are not true. In most cases, it means you cannot post things because they are true. After all, the ultimate point of political correctness is to ban the Truth and force people to say things that they know are untrue.

However, former employees of Facebook have now admitted on camera that hate speech is allowed if directed at white people. Facebook censors consider the term ‘Make America Great Again’ to be hate speech equivalent to Naziism and President Trump's campaign to have been a "hate organization." They applaud hate speech against straight white males such as "straight white males are filth." Some censors admit they try to remove all content supporting President Trump or conservatives in general.

Fact Checkers are Thought Police

Fact Checkers are Thought Police

Other Examples of Censorship

Canada is looking to ban social media “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

Back in the United States, the National Association of Realtors has declared that no one should be allowed to sell houses if they have ever, on social media or in a private email, "intended to insult or offend" anyone or any group; because of "some trait." This includes "disparaging," "shaming," or "innuendo" about a protected group. Anyone should be excommunicated from the realtor profession who has ever used the term “illegal alien” or frowned upon Islamic terrorism. Not to mention, "inappropriate conduct, comment, display, action, or gesture-based on another person's sex, color, race, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and any other protected characteristic."

The Democrat government put out an absurd press release in October 2021: “Admiral Levine now serves as the highest-ranking official in the USPHS Commissioned Corps and its first-ever female four-star admiral.”

A United States Congressman responded, “The title of first female four-star officer gets taken by a man.” Twitter suspended him and said he engaged in “hateful conduct,” to which they added, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

The congressman says, “My tweet was a statement of fact. Big Tech doesn't have to agree with me, but they shouldn't be able to cancel me. If they silence me, they will silence you. We can't allow Big Tech to prevent us from telling the Truth."

Even satire websites have been warned, “Hate speech is punching down.” If you think about it, that is implying that white men are above everybody else. Punching up at the white man is acceptable, but a white man poking fun at anyone other than another white man is “hate.”

1984 Was Not Supposed to be an Instruction Manual

1984 Was Not Supposed to be an Instruction Manual

De Facto Censorship of Any Views Contrary to the Democrats’ Narrative

In America, the movement to ban ‘hate speech’ was initially only to stop denial of the Holocaust and public use of the ‘N’ word. That has been accomplished. According to its original American definition, there is no hate speech in America except for black music. Never has speech been so unhateful, and yet shrieks to end hate speech grow louder.

What Democrats really want is to punish heterosexual white Christian men by denigrating and censoring their thoughts, words, wisdom, and standards. The Left seeks revenge on whites because they see them as oppressors of everyone else. Because free speech is a vital element of America, it must be destroyed, along with all else that represents Western Civilization, which Democrats see as an odious thing created by white men.

Democrats want to ban free speech to “transform America.” To impose its vision on our society, the Left aims to liberate the ‘oppressed’ from any standards of Western Civilization. That is why you see Democrats claim that everything is racist, from grammar to math to science to the rule of law.

Afraid that their ideas will not stand logical scrutiny, they do not want a healthy public debate. They want opposing views banished. Therefore, all discussion will end regarding such issues as black crime, the benefits of a traditional family, illegal aliens, or the biology of sex.

Hate Speech is Murder?

Hate Speech is Murder?

Criminalizing Hate Speech

The movement to make ‘hate speech’ a crime was launched by the book Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy by Delgado and Stefancic. Delgado is one of the creators of Critical Race Theory. He redefined hate speech as “Words that wound blacks, LGBTQ+, Latinos, and Muslims.”

As explained by Arthur Milikh in the Claremont Review of Books: “The ‘equal personhood’ of the marginalized, they contend, depends on outlawing any speech that the marginalized BELIEVE demeans them, for to allow anyone to speak or even to think of minorities derisively is discrimination. Therefore, society must end up banning political deliberations that blame any portion of their disadvantages on their own actions and habits; images that fall short of being celebratory; and even factual claims that contradict marginalized groups' internal or public narratives.”

According to Delgado and Stefancic, it is the white man’s fault that “marginalized groups suffer from hypertension, high blood pressure, even strokes, as well as mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction.” It is their fault because they built this civilization and built it only to benefit themselves. And this Western Civilization and everything about it must be destroyed or the oppressed with never thrive. Everything except its wealth, that is. Since the white man stole it from 'people of color,' it must be confiscated and given back to them.

Because the civil rights movement did not produce communism—equal income and assets for all individuals and groups—it failed in the eyes of progressives. “Thought and language are inextricably connected,” Delgado and Stefancic assert. Therefore, whites' “feelings, practices, and patterns of behavior” must be transformed by force. Criticism of anyone except white males must be eliminated, and everyone except them must be glorified.

The Truth must be banned if it disrupts the Left's narrative that gender is assigned at birth, all whites are racist, America is a white supremacist country, and men have oppressed women forever. The government must be used to censor, persecute, punish, and plunder white men until communism is achieved.

As Milikh writes, “The marginalized must be able to speak against, calumniate and malign the alleged oppressors and their institutions, for their self-respect comes to depend entirely on this. Protecting the self-respect of the marginalized requires banning certain facts. Factual speech that calls into question a marginalized group’s self-respect is ‘deplorable’ and constitutes ‘hate speech.’”

George Orwell What Liberty Means

George Orwell What Liberty Means

Colleges Led the Way

The current concept of 'hate speech' comes from our college campus. Any student or professor who does not adhere to the politically correct narrative woven by Democrats is accused of hate. To even politely question the obsession with oppression of leftist ideology is out of bounds. To hear an opposing point of view makes fragile 'snowflakes' feel "unsafe." So anything they don't want to hear is suppressed as hate speech. This way, they will not have to defend their views with common sense, logic, evidence, or facts. Any competing ideas must be silenced by those who are confident that they are superior human beings.

A recent study based on the Student Attitudes Association Survey found that 60% of college students responded that promoting an inclusive environment welcoming to a diverse group of students should be a more important priority than protecting students' free speech rights, especially hurtful or offensive speech. Sixty-three percent believe government should punish hate speech. Forty percent think the First Amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts somebody else's feelings. Thirty-five percent believe that public institutions ought not to invite speakers who might offend someone. Twenty-three percent believe physical violence is acceptable to censor speech you don’t like.

Thus "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" were deemed hate speech. Expressing any doubts about the fairness of affirmative action is hate speech. To deny 'white privilege' exists, defend Holy Matrimony or the nuclear family, be pro-life, or disagree that "Islam is a religion of peace" are all current examples of hate speech.

In this milieu, this zeitgeist, professors and students can openly pour contempt on white males and only face applause. Christians and conservatives are publicly hated on by all who dare open their mouths. To call for Trump supporters or police officers to be murdered is no offense. To physically assault conservatives is cheered. But to oppose racial reparations or say there are only two genders will get you kicked off the campus.

Dennis Prager observes, "The place that is supposed to be the place of ideas, the university, is the most closed place in the United States." Bill Maher asks, "Who told you that you only had to hear what didn't upset you?!"

The Left Defines Hate Speech

The Left Defines Hate Speech

It is All About Victimhood

In his book A Nation of Victims, Charles J. Sykes writes about what he calls “a culture of victimization" created by Democrats' fixation on the travails of the "oppressed." Sykes declares, “On the campuses of elite universities, students quickly learn the grammar and protocols of power—that the route to moral superiority and premier griping rights can be gained most efficiently through being a victim. In the society of victims, individuals compete not only for rights or economic advantage but also for points on the ‘sensitivity’ index, where ‘feelings’ rather than reason are what count.” That is why 34% of whites lie to colleges and falsely claim membership in some victim group.

Those in a victim group are shielded from criticism, and all must celebrate anything they do or say. One must never challenge their views or judge their behavior.

To quote Milikh one last time, “Meanwhile, the marginalized and the elites working on their behalf are free to express hate speech toward the oppressor group. Such animosity is limitless and unappeasable. Society must criminalize ‘hate speech’ both for the pride of the oppressed and as a form of psychological warfare against the oppressor. They demand that society mythologize the oppressed to promote their self-respect and purify the oppressor’s minds: the marginalized are, simultaneously, innocent and blameless but also noble and heroic.”

I Disagree with that You Say but I Will Defend Your Right to Say It

I Disagree with that You Say but I Will Defend Your Right to Say It

Young Journalists Oppose Free Speech!

As John Tierney reports in City Journal: “Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about ‘hate speech’—defined more and more broadly. They are increasingly eager for others to be ‘de-platformed’ or ‘no-platformed,’ as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

“These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and demonetized on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as speech.

“Greg Lukianoff dates the ascendancy of the new censors to 2013. ‘That’s when we started hearing the language of medicalization, that free speech would cause medical harm.’”

No Freedom for Hate Speech

No Freedom for Hate Speech

Big Tech Censorship

Originally in America, to be accused of hate speech, one had to do one of two things. Either you had to express hatred of a group of people, as in, "I hate those people!" Or you had to call for violence against members of some group, as in “Let’s beat the crap out of those people!” or “They should be killed.”

Today the term, "family values" has been declared "hate speech." Twitter banned a public figure in Spain for saying, "A man cannot get pregnant." LGBTQ activists demand that Christians be criminally prosecuted for hate speech if they do not celebrate homosexual behavior. Churches in some countries are prohibited from saying "sodomy is a sin." Now Amazon, easily the world’s largest bookseller, is banning books that disagree with transgender ideology, calling disagreement “hate speech.”

YouTube censored Candace Owens for "hate speech" for saying "men and women are inherently different." Scientific research that showed obesity can cause cancer has been deemed "hate speech." To make a factual statement such as, "If a person has a penis, he's a man" is now called "hate speech."

Report Thought Crimes

Report Thought Crimes

Definition of 'Progressive'

Progressivism is an authoritarian ideology in which individual freedoms are crushed that uses the power of the central government to force people to conform to its demands; to implement indoctrination of their beliefs through the schools, universities, and all other forms of communication of information; with its chief aim a fundamental transformation of America into a totalitarian nation—a nation in which the government is in total control of people's property, earnings, actions, speech, and even their thoughts, through statism, millions of laws regulating even the minutiae of life, political correctness, thought police, speech codes, and hate crime laws; ultimately ushering in a worldwide dictatorship.

What progressives hate most are Capitalism and Christianity. Capitalism because white people are good at it and because Free Enterprise is the child of Protestant Christianity. Christianity condemns the moral sins promoted and enjoyed by Democrats. It is the foundation of Western Civilization, which white people created. Leftists hate white people and everything about them. So at bottom, hate speech laws are based on demonic hatred.

Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act

In Closing

Free speech is based on the idea that everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions and express them. Progressives aim to control what other people utter and think for political purposes. Everything is political to them. To manipulate the thoughts and feelings of others is to use speech as an instrument of power. Anyone who dares dissent from progressive orthodoxy must be silenced through censorship, shunning, starvation, denial of medical care, the Gulag, or death.

Aside from using speech codes as a racial tool, in the war against free enterprise, the Left is making war on Christianity because of what God says about sex in the Bible. Progressives must exterminate the Bible and the Christian faith because of moral teachings that condemn what Democrats do. Progressives want to sin without anyone saying they are sinning. Christianity presents powerful truths against which leftists stand in rebellion; truths leftists wish to silence.

As Carl Trueman writes in First Things, “The Christian Gospel is first and foremost a judgment on the world. Christianity tells the world what it does not wish to hear.”



Related Articles