At a recent protest I saw the following sign:

Hate Speech is Not Free Speech. I don’t remember seeing this one before. It seemed to me that across the political spectrum the right to free speech is seen as nearly absolute. And especially to the left, who have such a love affair with protesting, not having much luck lately with either winning elections or swaying popular opinion.

Since this particular sign was protesting against a Nazi rally, it is certainly easy to understand the feeling. But there’s still one thing that bothers me about fully accepting the concept.

Who defines what hate speech is?

If hate speech is not 1st Amendment protected free speech, it seems that whoever gets to define “hate speech” has it made. If you successfully manage to define hate speech as whatever positions you disagree with, you have effectively muzzled your opponents. It is easy to agree that Nazi supremacist rantings are disgusting and over the line, but what about other positions? How about those who disagree with abortion?

At the same rally there were several pro-life activists with large signs. They were being followed around constantly by liberals who deliberately held their own signs in front of the pro-life activist’s signs.

As they would turn around or move, the tolerant lefties would run back around in front of them again, often shouting abuse at them. Some used poles with bed sheets on them to cover up their signs.

Having accepted that hate speech is not free speech, and having defined a pro-life stance as being hate speech, you are therefore perfectly justified in muzzling another persons right to free speech. Clear?

And just in case they don’t get the message, you can always do like this guy was doing:

Just repeatedly bash a bucket with a drumstick in the ear of someone you don’t agree with from the rear while your friends cover up his sign from the front.

True liberal tolerance and diversity on display. Sometimes it makes my head hurt.