Commentary
-
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Okay.
Tucker Carlson says hate speech is not real. It’s made up basically, it’s not an actual thing. Listen, we can disagree politically. We can disagree on ideology, methodology, we can disagree on sentiment and even values. But we should all agree that hate speech is a very real thing. And hate speech has been used by individuals in ways that create dissension, not coalitions, in the United States of America.
So Tucker Carlson made this outrageous statement, he said, and I quote, “what is hate speech, by the way?” All of a sudden, everyone in the media has sort of, without explaining why, agree that there’s a thing called hate speech. That’s real and probably actionable. They can find a billion dollars judgment against you if you commit hate speech.” No, they can’t. But that’s a lie he decided to tell.
He goes on to say, “but just to remind everyone watching, there’s no such thing as hate speech.” He continued, “Hate speech is speech. People hate, usually, the people in power.”
So let me highlight the lack of intellectual integrity and probably intellectual prowess of Tucker Carlson. He literally says hate speech does not exist. Then he says it does exist in the context of speech that people hate. Well, that’s not how it works. But he does acknowledge hate speech does exist in a certain context. But then he goes on to say that hate speech is typically hated by the people in power.
Now, that will be news to people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, who had hate speech hurled at him. He was not a man in power. He was a man striving and advocating for black people in America to have fair wages, for black people in America to have equal opportunity and access. And by extension, those who may not be black, but who were poor, working and trying to live the American dream. Now remember, Tucker Carlson’s basis here, his proclamation, the platform, says hate speech does not exist. Now, why is he doing this? Why is he saying this?
It is the pretext to create the context for what they will do next. The pretext is, let’s allow all language, even language that offends, as part of our social mainstream. Here’s the reality.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. Those are not the same. Just because you have the ability to say hateful things, does not mean there will not be a consequence to the hateful speech you spew.
Additionally, hate speech is a real thing. The word or the terminology is not a legal term of art. It is a descriptor in our social construct. We have determined that certain language, that racist language in particular, is in fact hate speech. But since Tucker Carlson is unable to understand what hate speech is, since he questions if it even exists, I have decided to provide some education for little Tuck Tuck. So hate speech, Tucker, is abusive or threatening speech or a writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation. Now Tucker, just in case you are confused about what the Constitution says about speech, let me remind you. The Constitution First Amendment says clearly, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.
Is there a law against the speech that you are talking about? No. Is there consequence in certain context? Yes. If you decide to be a hateful individual, racist or prejudiced, if you decide to be that person, well, you may have a consequence. You see, these are lessons we teach our children. This is normative stuff.
We tell our children, “Listen, don’t say that that’s mean.” Why do we tell our children that? Because we know that there will be a societal impact based on immature or hateful language. We understand it. Now all of a sudden, conservatives want to live in a world where they have freedom of speech and freedom from consequence. Doesn’t work that way, little Tuck Tuck.
-
Americans deserve younger candidates, better ideas
On March 7, President Joe Biden delivered a well-received State of the Union address, speaking clearly and in detail about the challenges that the nation must confront. Less than four months later, on June 28, a very different-looking president took the stage to debate Donald Trump. In both speech and physical appearance, this Biden suddenly… -
Time for Christian evangelicals to part ways with Trump
As former President Trump vies for another shot at the White House, one loyal demographic he is counting on is white Christian evangelicals. More than 80% of evangelicals backed Trump in the 2020 election, and after endorsing a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, he’s gearing up for… -
Democracy is on the ballot this November
Donald Trump has talked casually of making himself a dictator if he gains power again this November. While that has alarmed many liberals, a significant number of Republicans actually support Trump’s aspirations. Seventy-four percent of GOP voters say that they would support Trump seizing dictatorial powers for at least one day, and pro-Trump organizations have… -
It is insane to let convicted felons run for president
U.S. state and federal laws often restrict the roles that convicted felons can play in American society. States prohibit felons from voting in elections, for instance, and felons are also prohibited from serving in the United States Armed Forces without an explicit waiver. Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, is nonetheless campaigning to become both… -
To reform police, end qualified immunity
Public debates on police reform have often tackled the issue of qualified immunity, a policy that protects police officers from lawsuits filed by victims or citizens. A recent ruling in Mississippi even raised concerns that this policy of qualified immunity might be unconstitutional. Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor Dr. Rashad Richey…
Popular Opinions
-
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.