The US government is inching closer to banning so-called hate speech. The Washington Free Beacon reports, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency, will spend nearly $1 million in taxpayer money to create an internet database targeting “false and misleading ideas,” “suspicious memes,” and “hate speech” on Twitter. Though the database will have no authority immediately, it reflects the federal government’s priority and foreshadows passage of a hate speech ban similar to the UK’s Public Order Act 1986.
Sometime in the past, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling made a private comment to his now-ex-girlfriend. He asked that she refrain from bringing Black people to Clippers basketball games. Sterling did not intend to publicly broadcast the comment. Nevertheless, a recording of it appeared on the celebrity gossip website TMZ earlier this week. Now, amid public outrage at Sterling’s thoughtcrime, the NBA has opened an “investigation” of the matter; Continue Reading
Originally posted at Independent Political Report (IPR)
No visitor retains the right to post on IPR. The owner can manage the site as he pleases. But there is no reason IPR cannot attempt to replicate the free and fair society that its owner, contributors, and followers envision.
IPR currently faces a crisis of conscience. Two years ago, it took the unlibertarian step of banning one good faith commenter. Now, some on the site are calling for the ban of another good faith commenter. This reaction is a symptom of a much larger disease affecting the entire United States. Rather than forgiving unfortunate comments and disputing ideas on the highest levels of Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, some opt to silence voices completely; the IPR equivalent of a ban. In argument, these tactics do not win. As Thomas Dewey expressed in a 1948 GOP presidential debate, pushing disputed views underground only allows those views to fester unchallenged. Continue Reading