United Church of Christ: Stifle “Hate Speech”
But they do oppose “hate speech.”
And their definition of “hate speech” is terribly vague and broad. For example:
Hate speech takes various forms, from words inciting violence, to those creating a climate of hate towards vulnerable groups. Hate speech has one common outcome: it creates an environment of hate and prejudice that legitimizes violence against its targets.Of course, what are “false facts” is often a matter of opinion. And so is the proper “context.” The last thing governent should do is decide that “facts” are allowed to be broadcast.
The presence of hate speech so widely in media creates a climate that makes it impossible to have reasonable policy discussions on issues like immigration reform, and cultivates a climate that condones violence against targeted groups.
Categories of hate speech:
- False Facts consist of incorrect, exaggerated, or de-contextualized facts.
- Flawed Argumentation is rooted in hidden assumptions, guilt by association, and appeal to fear.
- Divisive Language creates and/or encourages an “us vs. them” mentality. Hard times often incite blaming “others” as the source of trouble. Catholics, Jews, and African Americans have been routinely targets as scapegoats for those wishing to further their own agendas.
- Dehumanizing Metaphors evoke messages relating to warfare, heroism, disease, and biblical characters.
And of course, “divisive language” aimed at conservative Christians, or white males, or the military, or insurance companies is apparently fine.
The statement makes it entirely clear that it’s only “vulnerable groups” that get protection.
The statement is addressed to the Federal Communications Commission.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a report in 1993 on The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes. Members of the So We Might See Coalition are encouraging them to update this report.Then we get a really Orwellian formulation:
The National Hispanic Media Coalition has filed a Petition for Inquiry in the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media at the Federal Communications Commission. Members of the So We Might See Coalition support this petition.
The First Amendment does protect even the most vile speech. The government, however, can play a role in compiling statistics and adopting rules that will help members of the public form their own opinions and hold broadcasters and other media outlets accountable for purveying this speech.So, they are against censorship but in favor of “holding accountable” broadcast outlets that allow “hate speech.”
This is what happens when a Christian denomination gets taken over by a secular clerical elite. While people in the pews drift away, they engage in a series of moralistic crusades.