Dershowitz: Hate Speech Laws "Dangerous Trend"

by JASmius

Oh, come now, Professor, don't you think you're at least exaggerating a smidge?  I mean, as the old saying goes, "What could possibly go wrong?":

Democrat Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts has introduced legislation calling for the government to investigate "hate speech" on broadcast, cable, and Internet outlets — a bill that is raising concerns from First Amendment advocates and constitutional experts.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz called the enactment of hate speech laws a "dangerous trend."

"I have never in my life seen a successful effort to define hate speech that does not interfere with rights of free expression," Dershowitz told Newsmax. "It is a worthy effort, but my prediction is that it either leads to the conclusion government cannot do it, or that they will do it and that will infringe on First Amendment rights. 

"Governments are trying to also make changes to hate speech law and debating the issue in Canada, at the United Nations, and even right now in Israel. It is a worldwide trend, but it is a really dangerous trend," Dershowitz said.

Well, okay, I guess there are a few problems with the Markey bill.

1) "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech...."  So says the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  I don't see any qualifiers attached to it, either.

2) Has anybody asked Senator Markey who it is that gets to define what "hate speech" is?  Because if it's the government in general, and animals like Ed Markey in particular, then I'd have to refer him back to point #1.

3) If anybody seriously believes that the Markey bill, were it to become law (which it won't, at least not legally - Barack Obama does still have his pen and his phone, though....), wouldn't skew its definition of "hate speech" to target conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, Tea Partiers, Republicans, etc., then Lois Lerner has a rogue bridge in Cincinnati she'd like to sell you.

Markey's hook for this bill?:

Announcing the Hate Crime Reporting Act last month, Markey cited three killings at Jewish centers in Kansas by a white supremacist in April, and said in a statement it is "critical to ensure the Internet, television, and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment."

Ah, yes.  Because Frazier Glenn Cross would never have shot up those two senior centers if "the Internet, television, and radio" hadn't "encouraged" him to do so.  And who, by Regime definition, are the only people who engage in "hate" speech?  Why, conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, Tea Partiers, Republicans, etc.  How convenient.

That "white supremacist" is a Democrat, BTW.

Ken Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center, told Newsmax that Markey's bill "strikes me not only as misguided, but also probably a waste of time.

"Studying the prevalence of hate speech on the web or in any other media is a perfectly legitimate examination for academics who want to explore that issue. It is an entirely different matter when government seeks to do that because inevitably they will act on the report," Paulson said.

Paulson asserted that even if the report requested by Markey comes back finding a prevalence of hate speech, the government cannot do anything about it as a consequence of First Amendment protections of even the most vile speech.

"There always is the concern when Congress studies an issue because there exists that temptation to act on the results," Paulson said. "If someone posts on the Internet that we should go string someone up and they name that person, and encourage action, that is a different matter. But hateful speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment."

However "hateful" is defined.  Filth like Ed Markey should be glad about that.  Otherwise, the entire American Left would have to be muzzled.

Not that that isn't sorely tempting, but still....