13 House Democrats Offer Bill Demanding Government Study on Internet Hate Speech

Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill, January 16, 2014

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.”

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades.

“The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship,” he said. “But it can also be used as a platform to promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.

“This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.”

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Like the news today here on AR about the bill being introduced to reimplement parts of the Voting Rights Act, this is election year theatrics by Democrats. When the bill goes nowhere, as it is designed to do, Democrats, especially Senate Democrat candidates, will run ads superimposing their Republican opponents with Adolf Hitler and Swastikas.

    • Oil Can Harry

      This is a repeat of the liberal media’s hysterical attack on “hate radio” during the Clinton Administration.

      Ironically, the most hateful and racist talk radio hosts are on Pacifica Radio and NPR which are supported by our tax dollars.

  • Truthseeker

    “Hate speech.” The very term is ridiculous. They can define anything they don’t like as “hate speech” to silence whomever they want. Enjoy what’s left of free speech while you still have it.

    • Sick of it

      The only way to keep free speech is to fight for it. Playing nice isn’t going anywhere.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        “The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship,” he said. “But it can also be used as a platform to practice free speech I disagree with.”

    • Who Me?

      Get ready for the end of AmRen.

      • angrywhiteman

        why not “get ready to fight”? why just roll over and admit defeat?

        • Who Me?

          Why signal your intent?

    • John R

      “Hate speech” is one of those phrases that can mean almost anything. A little like “enemy of the people.”

    • T_Losan

      this is exactly it. Just like “racism” is anything negative about certain special groups, “hate speech” is basically the same thing, only about even more groups.

    • angrywhiteman

      we can enjoy it as long as we like and our children as well “IF” we are willing to fight for it!

    • BillMillerTime

      “hate speech” simply means speech that they hate, and which they wish to silence.

  • Jesse James

    Better get those hate speech laws codified and strengthened so they can fill up all those empty jail cells that will be created when they legalize most of the illegal drugs. Can’t let the Prison Industrial complex go to waste when we are so close to the Progressive Utopia.

    We will spit at thee from the depths of Hell liberal scum.

    • Reverend Bacon

      The Progressives don’t want to “legalize” those drugs. Just “decriminalize” them. Legalization would be racist. You see, if those drugs were sold at Walgreen’s and Rite Aid, those poor yet brilliant entrepreneurs from the anointed demographic wouldn’t be able to ply their trade. And all those other poor peoples who used to work so hard, sitting in front of their mailboxes waiting for their checks, and now those same poor peoples, who sit in front of their Obamaphones waiting for the text that says their EBT is reloaded– they are a product of the racist society, so they can’t make good choices for themselves. This goes for fast food, and it goes for drugs. The state knows best. If drugs were legal, they’d become addicts. Can’t have that now, can we? Never mind that many of them already are addicts, and now they steal to pay those poor-yet-brilliant entrepreneurs, who by the way are completely non-violent offenders, even though they all have assault weapons and use them in turf wars, but mostly they sell drugs and aspire to be rappers.

      So, the libtards really want to maintain the status quo, including all the drug profits and thug ghetto role models and the lip service about don’t use drugs, but when one of those murdering drug dealers is caught selling drugs, they should go free.

  • sbuffalonative

    I believe the 1st Amendment is pretty 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.

    Free speech is not held exclusively by the press. I don’t understand why ‘hate speech’ crimes aren’t challenged on 1st Amendment grounds.

    • Sick of it

      It may have something to do with the composition of the Supreme Court and the ideology of your average Federal judge. The system is rigged.

      • IstvanIN

        Our government was designed primarily for Protestants of Northern European decent, not really the crew who runs things now, or, at the very least, “they” shouldn’t be ruling us.

        • bilderbuster

          The Supreme Court has no Protestants.
          Six Catholics & three Jews make up the current court.

    • Reverend Bacon

      And, of course, in the case of Zimmerman and the famous Rodney King defendants, on 5th amendment grounds because of double jeopardy.

    • Who Me?

      To “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” will very shortly become a violation of “hate speech laws”, After all, it would be hate speech to point out what one of the “protected species” did.

    • dd121

      In theory you’re right; in practice Free Speech is what a majority of unelected judges on the supreme court say it is.

  • Mack0

    The left isn’t even trying to hide their Marxist agenda. The coming years are going to be very scary.

    • bilderbuster

      They weren’t referred to in the past as “Pushy” for nothing.

  • D.B. Cooper

    What a wonderful job you are doing Hakeem! I do admire you for going for it, AND recognizing a weak and pathetic opponent (The GOP). I hope it passes. Those who sit back and do nothing, deserve what’s coming to them. Hakeem, if white people in New York had a clue, your career would be ruined. Instead, they hold you up as a savior.
    Here’s my suggestion when your proposal passes: demand 90% of all state jobs go to blacks. Don’t you worry about a thing Hakeem. The white people up there won’t lift a finger to stop you.

    • Brian

      Surprise! Another Magic Mulatto.

      • MarcB1969

        Aren’t they just so willing to go that extra mile to compensate for their melanin deficiency?

  • dubyasee

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    ―Voltaire

    … and who are we not allowed to criticize? Who is pushing for the designation of “Hate Speech” to be legally forbidden?

    • Romulus

      Look no further than the author of the book Viral Hate, Abe foxman

      • bilderbuster

        It was “The Foxman Mob” that came up with the slogan & the courses to be taught called “Diversity is Our Greatest Strength” for everyone else except them that is.
        Of course only the White race needs to Diversify & be Tolerant of others no matter how alien those others may be to us.

    • Sick of it

      Perhaps the same people who pushed for such laws in Europe…

      • bilderbuster

        Does it start with a J? End with a W & rhyme with Jews?

    • bilderbuster

      The ones who put the Push in Pushy.

  • MekongDelta69

    Hakeem Jeffries – That says it all.

    Never have I encountered a race that’s so violent and (pretends to be) so ‘sensitive’ at the same time.

    • Max

      They commence to bawling and fainting dramatically, particularly with an audience, for all kinds of self-induced mishaps and that passes for sensitivity.

  • Extropico

    Hakeem is no doubt aware that many of us in this fledgling pseudo-democracy are angry about being minoritized.

    Instead of banning free speech, were I in the House I’d counter by proffering a rider to Hakeem’s bill to mandate an invasion of Africa and race-replacement of Africans, and require stipulation that any objection to the rider would be deemed “hate speech.”

  • Daniel Schmuhl

    Next step is to criminalize thoughts.

    • Sick of it

      We’ve been there for years. People get extra prison time for “hate crimes” and can find themselves unemployable for being touted as a racist.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    “Hate” is any kind of talk that the liberals can’t refute.

  • Luca

    I am not allowed to hate anything, I must agree with and like everything the government tells me is good for me. You know, like diversity.

    I can’t say hurtful things and I can’t hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s so nice to live in a country where I have so many freedoms that the government decides is good for me.

    I salute my wise government but I salute with only one finger.

    • Reverend Bacon

      Is it me, or are the comments getting funnier? Or is everything funny when the alternative to laughter is either crying, or Seppuku?

      • Sick of it

        Laughter can help to stave off madness.

        • Irishgirl

          Amen to that.

      • The opposition hates being mocked. This transforms humiliating them from merely sublime entertainment to a moral imperative.

        • Kenner

          It’s the Alinsky method; it can be turned on them. In fact, it must be!

  • DailyKenn

    *
    ‘Hate speech’ is code for anti-white.

  • Romulus

    The very creation of of “HATE” crime laws is intended to specifically limit free speech.

  • Spartacus

    Why do I get the feeling nationalblackfootsoldiernetwork(DOT)blogspot(DOT)com isn’t one of the sites they’re talking about ?

    • Max

      No, but pointing it out undoubtedly IS hate speech under their rubric.

      • Spartacus

        Good.

    • Reverend Bacon

      I have to admit, I don’t know much about that site. But I’ve never been convinced it’s not done by someone with the same ideology as, say, AmRen, but using the approach of The Onion.

      Many of the so-called “Hush Crimes” turn up on that site. Call me naive, but I honestly think that if liberals got to read that crap every day, at least 30% of them would lose their religion.

      • Spartacus

        Nope, all done by blacks, I checked from several sources, even from *vomits* the SPLC. They follow this guy’s ideology :

    • Lt_Greyman_NVA

      My God! What a Horror site.

  • Alfred the Great

    Someday this will happen.

  • DailyKenn

    *
    Black flash mobs are accustomed to using social media to coordinate their rascality. Will that be included in the study?

    • Irishgirl

      Agreed, except that I think “rascality” is far too mild a term for head-stompers.

  • dd121

    OMG, they MUST plug the one hole that leaks the truth occasionally, the internet.

  • Max

    Will they be monitoring “sail fomes” for hatespeech?

    Enquiring white minds want to know.

  • John K

    “Hakeem Jeffries”……..

    Why am I not surprised?

  • 2eRep

    Hate speech is just another control scam. Never be afraid to say what you think.

    • Even if you are afraid, do it anyway. Especially do it when you are scared.

      • Irishgirl

        What I fear is those folks who want to control “hate speech” by requiring us to use our true identities when posting. I realize this makes me an absolute coward, but I am not willing to reveal my name, as it would cost me my university job and much more.

        As an aside, I respect and admire your bravery in using your real name. Alas, I’m not there yet.

        • I believe this discussion forum to be something akin to the Committees of Correspondence before the American Revolution, so of course I use my own name. If something happened to me, I would want everyone to notice. When we someday win, I would want to be remembered as THAT Michael Christopher Scott.

          Every day of my life as a free man who will not be silenced, I win.

        • PvtCharlieSlate

          Prudence is not cowardice.

          • How do you benefit from prudence? Prudence makes China what it is. I love reckless bravery.

          • PvtCharlieSlate

            Would you please expand on how prudence makes China what it is. I just don’t get the connection.

            George Custer regularly engaged in reckless bravery by always leading from the front and attacking the enemy head on. His troops loved him for it but they suffered for it, too. So did he, eventually.

          • WR_the_realist

            There’s a place for prudence and a place for reckless bravery.

        • Max

          You are correct. There is no forum worth losing your job for, keyboard warriors notwithstanding.

          You’re not going to get some special “extra credit” for using your legal name here and Mr. Scott is delusional for thinking that he is going to get a bronze statue and page in the history books because he puts his name here.

          Aside from all of that, there are too many independent kooks out there who really don’t need your name.

  • Evette Coutier

    Hate is not a crime and hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Why are we investigating legal activity? Something to thing about.

  • Romulus

    Astute observation , in light of AMC’s 20 yr anniversary showing this wknd of PULP FICTION.
    As we realists know precisely what hollwood and media are for (propaganda), we can then understand the underlying message and innuendo of this supposed “great film”

  • wildfirexx

    This is just a second step in silencing free speech, that doesn’t meet the standards of the liberal agenda. The federal appeals courts have already given The Big communication companies in USA, like Verizon and others, the right to control which websites they will allow and not allow over the internet, by pricing them out of business.
    We must lobby our federal politicians to counter this recent ruling, and change their course in the name of free speech and Open Internet! Also, defining what should be classified as hate speech and which should not, should not be left up to our servants in government!

  • Massif1

    Delusional blacks with their hate speech and stories about great African empires need to be jailed. I haven’t seen any African empires in my life and will never see one in the next 80 years.

  • Druid

    “Hate Speech” – I love it. With all the zillions of dollars spent on propaganda, they can’t make us nasty people go away. Even if they pass a bill outlawing hate speech, it’ll pop back up in another form. They have to try spending money on getting rid of experience. Once experience is gotten rid of, then they can work on hate speech. It’s that lousy experience that causes that lousy hate speech.

    • Max

      Problem here is that they spend OUR money trying to stifle OUR speech and OUR money promoting THEIR speech. That doesn’t work for me.

  • WR_the_realist

    The internet is used to organize violent black flash mobs and to promote the knock out game. I’m sure that the Democrats have no intention of investigating those types of internet hate, even though they are of the few forms of internet hate that actually result in people being injured or killed.

  • John R

    Let me guess: They will target websites of race realists, like this one, for “hate speech” meaning, thinking critically about racial issues. But, in the meantime, our precious African American “teens” can still happily plan their next flash mob attacks on the various social media available to them. In reality 99% of the kind of internet use that leads to violence comes from blacks. Will our government ever target a crime that is committed overwhelmingly by blacks? HE%L NO! Obviously, we all know what this is about.

  • John R

    Django Unchained. 12 years a slave. They just keep digging this stuff up.

    • Max

      See the sequel: “12 Kids on Welfare”.

  • Ograf

    When free speech is against the law I will be a criminal.

    • Sick of it

      Congratulations, you are a criminal sir.

  • judenjager

    Liberals think with their emotions. Facts scare them. They see that their bedwetting rainbow world is a farce. When the crash comes the toll amongst the lemmings will be frightful. Their pet negros and illegals will eat them alive. I’m glad they think guns are bad.

  • Sick of it

    A scientific dictatorship actively stifling scientific progress and run by, at best, people with slightly above average IQ?

  • Brian

    “This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and
    hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the
    First Amendment protection.”
    ===
    That’s strange– I thought the ‘zone of First Amendment protection’ was called ‘America’.

  • Druid

    What “Holy Book” is against women?

  • I had a good friend named Luis once. He went to the Happy Fun Place, as did I, but I hope he is OK.

  • gregCall

    “Hate speech” is irrelevant as it is still protected by the first amendment, and in my experience NEVER advocates violence.
    If, as they state they really want to “look at how those media are used to “advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crime””, all they need to study is how blacks use Twitter to organize their “mahogany mobs” ransack businesses, malls,and commit racially motivated attacks, of course the Democrats wanting this investigation will turn a blind eye to the actual perpetrators of violence as they always do.
    It’s always more acceptable to focus on the mythical whites committing “hate crimes”.

    • newscomments70

      “all they need to study is how blacks use Twitter to organize their “mahogany mobs” ransack businesses, malls,and commit racially motivated attacks”

      I believe most of us thought of that when we saw the article, and we all know the answer.

  • Alexandra1973

    Oh, that unholy book.

    One time I saw a copy of it in a used book store. I shoved a Chick tract (one of those cartoon tracts) into it, then went on my merry way.

  • bilderbuster

    Just like “The Knockout Game”,
    Only when Jewish people are the victims.

  • Ella

    When I read this article, I questioned if we live in a new “China.” Did US govt. make a New Deal with China over Internet censorship? Even the Chinese cannot filter the Internet successfully.

  • The United States Supreme Court ruled several years ago that the Second Amendment really does provide an individual right to firearms ownership: i.e. that it does not merely protect the federal government’s right to arm the National Guard. My suspicion is that any First Amendment case would go the same way, though probably on a 7-2 split.

    Part of what has the establishment hot and bothered about internet “hate” speech is that online access is inexpensive (we bundled DSL service with basic telephone) and literally anyone can participate provided they get internet at home or regularly visit their local library (virtually all of these in the USA now have computers). One need not be wealthy enough to own a television station or a newspaper to participate anymore; the price of admission has gone down.

    Another aspect that infuriates them is that the very decentralization of online discussion makes it completely impossible for them to dictate terms to us.

    Some things discussed on the net are already prosecutable under existing laws, like “incitement to riot” and “solicitation to murder”, We don’t do that here, but some of our opposition does. Members of the “One People Project” apparently lost a civil lawsuit for having shut down AmRen conferences by communicating death threats across state lines, a federal felony for which the statute of limitations has still not expired.

    Since we are completely in the right, we do not need to incite violence or use threats of violence. I would actually welcome an investigation of what we believe, because we may recruit some allies in important places.

    • MBlanc46

      “My suspicion is that any First Amendment case would go the same way, though probably on a 7-2 split.”

      Care you give you views on just which of the justices would defend free speech?

      • They backed up the Second Amendment 5-4.

        • MBlanc46

          And you think that two of the four nays would vote aye for the First Amendment?

          • Kaganovitch certainly wouldn’t.

          • MBlanc46

            I haven’t followed any of the recent cases in great detail, but on anything having much ideological significance I’d expect a 5-4 decision.

    • Reverend Bacon

      “Part of what has the establishment hot and bothered about internet “hate” speech is that online access is inexpensive … and literally anyone can participate”

      I think you have completely nailed the reasons. The power elite like Feinstein want only “legitimate” newspapers to have the freedom of the press. In other words, if you can afford to own a multi-million dollar media outlet, like, say, the New York Times, you can participate in free speech. Hard to believe that this is what the Democrats really want, isn’t it?

      • Yet another accidental admission by the libtards that they have lunched it in the marketplace of ideas.

  • brior

    Here comes the censorship…
    watch for it. What is hate speech, what is a violent act to a liberal,Who is a vulnerable individual? This is a one way street and everyone knows who will be targeted.

  • emiledurk16

    “Hate speech”…and who gets to define that?….Hate speech my butt, you mean the truth?

  • T_Losan

    they should make a victimhood pyramid where heterosexual white males are at the very bottom, meaning that it’s ok for anyone to criticize them but if they criticize anyone it’s hate speech, with heterosexual white women just above the men, and so on.

  • MBlanc46

    Because they’re weasels and cowards?

  • MBlanc46

    As you don’t present any examples of what you consider hate, it’s impossible to make any concrete reply to you. I’d guess that for you, hate is the expression of any opinion that you disagree with.

  • slash345

    They can study it all they like but they can’t do nothing because I have freedom to say what I want thanks to the constitution!

    Get over it blacks!

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    They can start with the violent rap music that encourages rape, assaults and murder against us, rape and sexual degradation of our women and girls, kill police officers and in general make our lives unbearable. That is hate speech as well as inciting blacks towards committing genocide against us. But no, “hate” to them is anyone daring to voice opposition to our displacement, oppression and ongoing genocide against us. Those leading the charge to silence us are those who cannot be named.

    • None of the above is “hate speech”, it been going on for some time and the Government promotes it’s growth. Even though it advocates violence, genocide of whites, and destroying civilization it’s not hate speech. By contrast I suspect something like this AmRen website would fall under the category of “hate speech”.

  • jackryanvb

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Canada roll back some of these draconian hate speech laws?

  • riadakram

    I hate Democrats.

  • riadakram

    I hate liberals.

  • riadakram

    I hate leftists.

  • riadakram

    I hate censorship.

  • riadakram

    I hate censors.

  • Truth Teller

    I’m very proud of my hatred of White liberals, black criminals and affirmative action non Whites.