Huffington Post Explains Case For Censoring Free Speech

An op-ed at The Huffington Post puts another fascist feather in the cap of liberals who insist, while calling for the prohibition of large cups, fast food, and happiness, “No, honest, we’re not authoritarians!”

Like many authoritarians throughout history who have denied their desire to control every aspect of their enslaved constituents’ lives, but instead claimed they merely wanted to make the country and the world a better place—two desires which are not, in fact, mutually exclusive—the HuffPo writer, Sean McElwee, insists that his version of totalitarianism is for society’s own good.

The title and premise of his piece is—and I warn conservatives and libertarians to hold onto something soft and pliable lest you dig your nails too hard into your clenched fists—”The Case for Censoring Hate Speech.”

McElwee argues that Internet discussion forums with topics that, among others, glorify Nazis and the killing of women should be removed from the Internet not “because they are offensive, but rather because they amount to the degradation of a class that has been historically oppressed.”

In other words, we should ban things that are offensive to those groups, not just to McElwee’s own precious sensibilities.

An intellectually consistent person would also advocate, then, for a ban on any speech that offends redheads since hair color is the easiest way to identify the descendingly Irish, a historically oppressed group; also a ban on saying mean things about white people since white people, just like every other race, have for various reasons been slaughtered and enslaved throughout history.

Another historically oppressed group are those who ignore the politically correct rules of the day, such as the ones who started the discussion forums McElwee says should be banned. Hateful people have always been oppressed by power-hungry liberals (unless the hateful are one of their comrades), so, on these grounds, McElwee’s argument defeats itself.

Do liberals not realize that the world will continue beyond their reign (though, really, will it?); that the government that they want to silence whatever it itself defines as hateful will change hands just a few years down the road, and then the definitions of “hate” will change? Silencing a fiction such as “hate speech” would mean that under the next administration, assuming it is one that respects the Constitution, calling for a ban on “hate speech” and thus on free speech would be against the law; and that would be a law against which HuffPo’s Sean McElwee would be an egregious offender.