What New Laws Criminalizing “Hate Speech” Really Mean

Dr Briggs examines the new 'Hate Speech' laws, which are simply one further step towards the establishment of the 'thought crime' of 1984.

From William M. Briggs, PhD

Yesterday we investigated the I Have Ascended Beyond Fallacy, which is invoked when academic Experts, baffled their theories are not as loved by others as by themselves, try to explain this disbelief.

That they do this by invoking new theories is just what we would expect from academic Experts. Inventing theories is, after all, their day job. But what do non-academic Experts do when doubted?

Pass laws and make it illegal to question them.

Non-academic Experts therefore understand power better than academic Experts.

The objects of interest to academic Experts are not quite the same as non-academic Experts. Academics care most about their theories, which can be (as you know) esoteric and are not always of broad interest. Non-academic Experts love most the rules they have invented, where rules can be defined as political theories.

There is overlap in theories supported by academic and non-academic Experts, because, as I often explain, non-academic Experts call on academics to provide them “scientific support” for their political theories. Many rules are officially called “The Science”, and “The Science” is just academic theory.

Let’s look at an example of non-academic Experts quashing dissent, here from Ireland.

That country has a proposed new law (“Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences“) which bans “hate speech”, and even makes it illegal to possess written forms of “hate speech” on electronic platforms. This is similar to how the American Regime convicted comedian Douglas Mackey for tweeting memes, memes which the Regime called “disinformation.”

What may surprise you is that Official “disinformation” is no different than “hate speech”. Most think the “hate” in “hate speech” is that which expresses disdain or loathing in a thing or person. That element may indeed be present in examples, but true hate or loathing is not what is being made illegal. “Hate speech” are words that call into question, or openly express doubt, albeit indirectly, in Expert political theory. This is not well understood.

For instance, it is not in the USA “hate speech” to call a white man a “cracker”, but it is “hate” to call a /black man a forbidden-word-redacted. “Cracker” does not imply the theories of control and Equality are false, while forbidden-word-redacted does.

Equality you know is obviously false. Control is the “theory”, or rule, that recognizes, in this country, that whites are still the majority, and cannot be allowed to think of themselves as “white”, and so form a coalition against the Regime. The asymmetry in criminalizing insults is explained because of how the Regime wants to manipulate political forces. There’s more to this, of course, and these examples don’t apply in Ireland, but you have the idea.

Ireland has progressed further into the Expertocracy than America. Which is easy, since there are only five million souls there, with a large percent not of Irish descent. Ireland is still worth paying attention to, though, since Expert calls to Expert: when new rules which grow the Expertocracy are implemented, Experts everywhere look at them admiringly.

Here’s what is fascinating. The law in Ireland reads that, if a person is caught with Official Disinformation (“hate speech”) on their phones or computers, “the person shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material in contravention of [the section which criminalizes “hate speech”]”.

There, in one blow, is destroyed the ancient custom of presumed innocence. You are presumed guilty. The Irish Regime now demands you prove your innocence. Which is not possible.

“I’m sorry, my lord. I do not know how the meme got on my phone. I may have been surfing Twitter and didn’t really notice it.”

You’re guilty unless, for whatever reason, the judge takes a liking to you.

Even stronger, an Expert can always—this is why they are Experts—posit a theory why any piece of information is hateful to an Official Victim group. As the good Cardinal Richelieu said, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

There is an amusing article about the Irish law, which laments that the Experts who wrote the law announced that they were willing to listen to complaints and criticisms about the proposed law. But, it turns out, the Experts are not listening.

Oh, they might have listened to the odd objection, but they would never question their own wisdom, not when objections come from non-Experts. The Irish Experts behaved in just the same way as, say, Experts at our CDC when they open up policies for public comment. Which is to say, they laughed and did what they wanted to do in the first place.