Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.I’ve got some hate speech for you-kiss my ass.
The First Amendment is quite clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.And who do these thirty some organizations think should judge what is hateful and what is not? Keith Olbermann, good/Glenn Beck, bad? Yeah. The problem with determining what is “hate speech” is that there are too many variables. Ear/eye of the beholder and all that. That is why our Founders didn’t throw a bunch of qualifiers in to the First Amendment.
You have every right to annoy, offend and cause me hurt feelings and I can do the same to you. Grownups have a way of working these things out-mainly, if you don’t like it ignore or refute it or, if the mood strikes, one up it, but don’t act like a poor little child whose sensitivities must be protected by the all powerful State.
It is important to remember that people who want to restrict speech are perfectly fine allowing some hate speech filter through-in the interest of cultural diversity, sensitivity, blah, blah, blah. Controlling the message is merely one means of controlling the messenger and it is the tool of tyrants.