A Hate Church Makes a Case for Free Speech

HowardBThiname said:

My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The IUIC has a right to preach what they feel is the truth, even though others may feel threatened or offended. It just so happens that in this specific case, this group feels as though they are the chosen race.

That's not really different from some schools of thought that claim those of today's Jewish descent are really the chosen people.

And, it's not a far removed from the white supremacists who believe the white race is superior.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.

Click to expand...

Hate speech, in a rational world, should imply speech that comes from a person while their have hate in their heart. If someone thinks their race is better or the their race is the chosen one, but feels contentment or happiness in their heart, this is not hate speech. There is no hate in their heart. This is just words to build self esteem.

A good example of hate speech was the leftist mainstream media after Donald Trump won. One could feel the hate and contempt in their voice as they spoke. Yet that was not called hate speech, even though fueled by hate. Black lives matter, hates the police. This is hate speech, based on the criteria of hate in one's heart, fueling their thoughts and speech. Does the IUIC hate the groups it labels as hate groups? Would it reach out in friendship or feel contempt?

On the other hand, if you say a racist or sexist comment, in humor or in conversation, this is not hate speech, if the worlds come from a heart without hate. One cannot control what others think and feel, based on Pavlov buzz words. If they interpret the buzz words as hate speech, it is because they have hate in their heart; projection. If their respond back with hate in their heart, that is hate speech. This is a rational world view and may not make sense to the irrational.

The reason this is rational is based on how the brain creates memory. When memory is created, an emotional tag is added to the memory, by aspects of the limbic system, before it is written to the cerebral matter. Hate is one such emotional tag. Hate speech has to do with the tagging of memories, and not with the words themselves, since the same words can have other tags. The comedian can say the same buzz words and induce laugher due to the way it is tagged.

The problem is to many people on the left has been conditioned to associate anything with the right with hate tags, so they interpret only those groups with hate speech; trained seals. They may not understand the rational of hate speech.

HowardBThiname said:

People have a legal right to hate whomever they so choose. They only cross the line when their hatred morphs into "incitement" to harm others, which is a crime.

Click to expand...

I agree. And not only the legal right but the absolute right, regardless of whatever the law might be at a particular place or time. Attempts to control thoughts or beliefs never end well.

APB212 said:

The SPLC can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned. Who put them in charge of deciding whether a group is hateful? Hate speech is not a crime in the US and shouldn't be a crime anywhere else. If you don't like what they say, don't listen to it.

Click to expand...

We've seen what can happen in a country, when hate groups grow out of control (Nazis, KKK, etc). Frankly, I am thankful to he SPLC for their efforts.

Media_Truth said:

We've seen what can happen in a country, when hate groups grow out of control (Nazis, KKK, etc). Frankly, I am thankful to he SPLC for their efforts.

Click to expand...

The Neo-Nazis and KKK are fringe groups with little influence. The broader movement known as the Alt-Right is purely reactionary, fueled by think-tanks such as the SPLC that label them all as racists without hearing their concerns. Racism is bad and the death of that woman in Charlottesville was unacceptable, but demonizing the entire Alt-Right is not the answer. The only way things will ever improve is if, as the Doctor says, we sit down and talk.

APB212 said:

The Neo-Nazis and KKK are fringe groups with little influence. The broader movement known as the Alt-Right is purely reactionary, fueled by think-tanks such as the SPLC that label them all as racists without hearing their concerns. Racism is bad and the death of that woman in Charlottesville was unacceptable, but demonizing the entire Alt-Right is not the answer. The only way things will ever improve is if, as the Doctor says, we sit down and talk.

Click to expand...

Kind of off-Topic, because the cited all-black church is not ALT-Right at all. Still the SPLC has them listed as a hate group. Kind of disproves your claim. Personally, I can't stand the bigotry and bias that I have witnessed on FOX News.

Media_Truth said:

Kind of off-Topic, because the cited all-black church is not ALT-Right at all. Still the SPLC has them listed as a hate group. Kind of disproves your claim. Personally, I can't stand the bigotry and bias that I have witnessed on FOX News.

Click to expand...

Not off-topic at all: you cited the Neo-Nazis and KKK as an example and I refuted it.

Black or white, the principle is unchanged: branding them hateful doesn't defuse tensions.

HowardBThiname said:

My concern is that by designating individual groups as "hate groups," we're effectively creating an atmosphere that restricts their free speech.

The IUIC has a right to preach what they feel is the truth, even though others may feel threatened or offended. It just so happens that in this specific case, this group feels as though they are the chosen race.

That's not really different from some schools of thought that claim those of today's Jewish descent are really the chosen people.

And, it's not a far removed from the white supremacists who believe the white race is superior.

The question is not so much whether these various groups/churches have the right to free speech -- we know they do -- it's whether being designated a hate group has the effect of infringing on that right.

Is the "hate" label a form of social engineering designed to make society put pressure on specific groups to silence them?

This is an especially interesting case, because not only is this church racist in nature, it's also a religion, so it comes under another protective constitutional classification.

Click to expand...

It is a way to stifle freedom of speech. Censorship!
That's what we see happening over the years - the gradual infringement on our rights. And, the means to force a different ideology on us. It's forcing people to not only tolerate, but also to accept whatever the current mindset wants us to accept.

HowardBThiname said:

The IUIC has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC but they reject the designation because they are harming no one. The question is whether the designation of "hate" is an infringement on their free speech. Is it an infringement on anyone's free speech? Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Their belief is that blacks and Native Americans are among the descendants of the original 12 Tribes of Israel and that at the second coming of Christ (who was black), they will one day rule and white people will be their slaves.

As with the KKK and neo-nazis, the IUIC has every right to spread the word of what they feel is correct. It's only when they cross the line into harming someone that they fall afoul of the law.



I-Team: Las Vegas church labeled a hate group - Story | KLAS-TV

Click to expand...

1.) on the service it very much "sounds" like it "COULD" be a hate group. For me though its typically about action. I don't know enough about them, id have to read about it.
2.) unless the government is labeling something has hate speech and restricting it the answer is absolutely NO there is zero infringement by calling something hate speech.

HowardBThiname said:

The IUIC has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC but they reject the designation because they are harming no one. The question is whether the designation of "hate" is an infringement on their free speech. Is it an infringement on anyone's free speech? Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Click to expand...

The SPLC has a right to free speech. They can call you whatever they want.

Media_Truth said:

One thing is for certain. By classifying this group as a hate group, the SPLC has shown that they don't discriminate by political affiliation. They have been accused of only picking on Right Wing hate groups, and not the Left.

Click to expand...

What kind of backwards logic is that?

If they pick 59 right leaning groups and 1 left leaning group, you think that's proof they aren't discriminating? Its kind of the opposite.

MrWonka said:

The SPLC has a right to free speech. They can call you whatever they want.

Click to expand...

No but their designation is used as the basis for limiting their free speech rights and societal repercussions as well as consequences to members of those groups in their private sector lives.

Another piece of evidence that is really troubling is that as SPLC has expanded who they call a hate group, their funding and donations have skyrocketed. The SPLC profits by making their declarations, its very self serving for them to make the narrowest possible view of a group.

I am not saying there are some hate groups in their list, I am sure there are. I am saying SPLC may not be the best arbiter of that and their influence is unduly impacting people it probably shouldn't. Its my two cents that eventually, its going to wind into a civil action in court that will have some enormous implications. Maybe even a SCOTUS decision.

MrWonka said:

The SPLC has a right to free speech. They can call you whatever they want.

Click to expand...

While they may be able to legally do it -- does doing it infringe on those they label? It's kind of like the antiquated idea of forcing a "fallen" woman to wear a big scarlet letter on her bosom to let others know she is a hussy.

HowardBThiname said:

Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Click to expand...

In terms of the constitutional notion of free speech; absolutely not. They are not a government entity, and there's no restriction of speech on the part of the IUIC if they're labeled a "hate group".

In terms of the general philosophical notion of free speech, again I'd say no. If the SPLC is urging or calling for the group to be silenced and/or unable to speak, then that's acting in a way that's oppressing to the notion of free speech. But simply calling them a "hate group" is not.

Now whether or not it's useful, reasonable, tactful, or helpful speech and discourse within a society is a different story. As is a discussion of the SPLC's motivations and desires as it relates to naming these groups, or the potential flaws in their methodology and actions. But in terms of the ideals of free speech, there's nothing really "wrong" with what the SPLC is doing.

HowardBThiname said:

I'm thinking more of the groups like Antifa that shout-down protesters or use physical violence to stop them from holding free speech rallies. I'm also thinking about the pressure this type of social engineering has had on employers who immediately cringe when they find an employee is part of a "hate" group and fire them.

Click to expand...

if that's what you were thinking, why not focus on that. There's a large difference between attempting to forcefully silence speech via actual threats of violence, or via direct action clearly meant to silence (in terms of your "shout-down" comment) and a group using their own ability to speech to share their opinion regarding another group.

One is a DIRECT attempt at either forcefully, or threaten to forcefully, silence or directly hamper ones ability to speak; the other is, at best, a very indirect means.

There's a massive difference between the SLPC calling a group a "hate group" and an entity like ANTIFA threatening riots if someone speaks on a campus.

HowardBThiname said:

While they may be able to legally do it -- does doing it infringe on those they label? It's kind of like the antiquated idea of forcing a "fallen" woman to wear a big scarlet letter on her bosom to let others know she is a hussy.

Click to expand...

Thats not an analogous comparison at all, not even "kind of". Its intellectually dishonest to even compare forcing a person to wear something on their person, against their will, as an identifier to a person or group calling another a name. You can't be serious.

Theres no infringement because no speech is stopped by force. Like i said it would have to be the government labeling them and hindering them.

Zyphlin said:

if that's what you were thinking, why not focus on that. There's a large difference between attempting to forcefully silence speech via actual threats of violence, or via direct action clearly meant to silence (in terms of your "shout-down" comment) and a group using their own ability to speech to share their opinion regarding another group.

One is a DIRECT attempt at either forcefully, or threaten to forcefully, silence or directly hamper ones ability to speak; the other is, at best, a very indirect means.

There's a massive difference between the SLPC calling a group a "hate group" and an entity like ANTIFA threatening riots if someone speaks on a campus.

Click to expand...

Good post. Allow me to spin this a bit. What if...SLPC points them out and ANTIFA follows through?

AGENT J said:

Thats not an analogous comparison at all, not even "kind of". Its intellectually dishonest to even compare forcing a person to wear something on their person, against their will, as an identifier to a person or group calling another a name. You can't be serious.

Theres no infringement because no speech is stopped by force. Like i said it would have to be the government labeling them and hindering them.

Click to expand...

As with many topics, this one appears to have gone over your head. I don't have the time nor the inclination to address all the mistakes you're making.

Lovebug said:

Good post. Allow me to spin this a bit. What if...SLPC points them out and ANTIFA follows through?

Click to expand...

I dont think that matters one bit, why would it.
I mean as long as we are talking:

Person/Group 1 labeled Person/Group X as a hate group

Person/Group BLUE decides on their own to take action Against Person/Group X that was not suggested by Person/Group 1

If thats the case its a nonissue.

HowardBThiname said:

The IUIC has been labeled as a hate group by the SPLC but they reject the designation because they are harming no one. The question is whether the designation of "hate" is an infringement on their free speech. Is it an infringement on anyone's free speech? Is the SPLC oppressing free speech by handing down these labels?

Their belief is that blacks and Native Americans are among the descendants of the original 12 Tribes of Israel and that at the second coming of Christ (who was black), they will one day rule and white people will be their slaves.

As with the KKK and neo-nazis, the IUIC has every right to spread the word of what they feel is correct. It's only when they cross the line into harming someone that they fall afoul of the law.



I-Team: Las Vegas church labeled a hate group - Story | KLAS-TV

Click to expand...

No, no one is being "oppressed." A group not wanting to be called out on their hatred does not change that hatred. Nor should we pretend that rhetoric by a group is not hateful just because it is "free speech."

Zyphlin said:

In terms of the constitutional notion of free speech; absolutely not. They are not a government entity, and there's no restriction of speech on the part of the IUIC if they're labeled a "hate group".

In terms of the general philosophical notion of free speech, again I'd say no. If the SPLC is urging or calling for the group to be silenced and/or unable to speak, then that's acting in a way that's oppressing to the notion of free speech. But simply calling them a "hate group" is not.

Now whether or not it's useful, reasonable, tactful, or helpful speech and discourse within a society is a different story. As is a discussion of the SPLC's motivations and desires as it relates to naming these groups, or the potential flaws in their methodology and actions. But in terms of the ideals of free speech, there's nothing really "wrong" with what the SPLC is doing.

Click to expand...

One need not be a "government entity" in order to suppress speech, and it need not be "constitutional free speech," either. Nor, am I suggesting anything is legally "wrong."

This is more along the lines of social engineering.

I'm looking at the end result. Will the group's free speech be diminished by this label? They seem to think so. I'm just asking if they're correct in their assessment.

Tigerace117 said:

No, no one is being "oppressed." A group not wanting to be called out on their hatred does not change that hatred. Nor should we pretend that rhetoric by a group is not hateful just because it is "free speech."

Click to expand...

Now, this is an interesting post, because you immediately assumed that the group's beliefs were hateful, although they claim they are not. When religious tenets are labeled as hateful, even if the group seeks to do no harm, it opens the door to all religions being deemed hateful in some way.

HowardBThiname said:

As with many topics, this one appears to have gone over your head. I don't have the time nor the inclination to address all the mistakes you're making.

Click to expand...

So because you can't support your illogical non-analogous claim you are attempting (and failing) to deflect, personally attack and post lies. LMAO got it. Thats what I thought.
Let us know when you can defend and support your asinine claim, thanks.

or how about this, ill let you off easy. If you can factually prove i made one mistake with this topic in relation to your example not be analogous, please do so now and ill admit that mistake.

AGENT J said:

So because you can't support your illogical non-analogous claim you are attempting (and failing) to deflect, personally attack and post lies. LMAO got it. Thats what I thought.
Let us know when you can defend and support your asinine claim, thanks.

or how about this, ill let you off easy. If you can factually prove i made one mistake with this topic in relation to your example not be analogous, please do so now and ill admit that mistake.

Click to expand...

It makes no difference to me if you want to let me "off easy" or not. I have no desire to defend or support anything to satisfy you, because, simply put, I find your level of discourse to be shallow and off-base. No offense, but my time is limited and I won't waste it responding to your trolling. So far, both of your posts on this thread have been questionable. Feel free to keep posting, but don't expect any response from me.

HowardBThiname said:

Now, this is an interesting post, because you immediately assumed that the group's beliefs were hateful, although they claim they are not. When religious tenets are labeled as hateful, even if the group seeks to do no harm, it opens the door to all religions being deemed hateful in some way.

Click to expand...

No one is going to admit their beliefs are hateful; people aren't wired to recognize things like that. Therefore you are left with their own rhetoric to determine the truth; and anti semitic and anti white rhetoric is pretty clearly hateful.

When "religious tenants" target a group, or promote hatred of a group, it opens the door to violence down the road. We've seen that over and over and over again.

HowardBThiname said:

While they may be able to legally do it -- does doing it infringe on those they label?

Click to expand...

No. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say what you want whenever you want without consequences. I mean the freedom to say what you want whenever you want without consequences from the government. The SPLC is a private entity not a government one, and even if it were name calling does not pass the muster. Donald Trump calling for boycots of people that don't support him comes far closer to abrigging freedom of speach than anything the SPLC is doing.

HowardBThiname said:

It's kind of like the antiquated idea of forcing a "fallen" woman to wear a big scarlet letter on her bosom to let others know she is a hussy.

Click to expand...

Forcing is the opperative word. In this case you're forcing the woman to say something about herself against her will. If someone else decided to just call her a hussy however that would be protected speech under the first amendment.