Home Page - No Woke - Hate Speech vs Free Speech

The reason people cannot decide on whether they should support unlimited free speech is because we failed to follow the moral standards for this, everyone is talking about is it legal, or should we jail people for their peaceful expression of opinion, and if we jail them, what is the valid reason behind it.

I will enter this topic with a simple definition: "Hate speech is the derogatory comments on group of people, for who they are, not what they have done". Simple as that, it doesn't depend on whether it incites violence or not.

The reason you want to criticize something, or someone is because you want them to improve. Out of this, it is always the good intention. However, if it is something they cannot improve, like their skin color etc, then it can only be interpreted as bad intention, this is the simple moral backend everyone can easily follow.

Sometimes I was scared by people with really dark skin in some close corners, not due to perceived social status that they may rob me, but simply, that mister is just too dark, he suddenly appears in front of me, I jumped out of my skin. But if I complain about them, saying, "Mate, why the F you are so dark", then no doubt this is hate speech, even if it may not break the law in some countries, and the perceiving end may not be particularly insulted since he may not really consider "dark" as derogatory, but it is still hate-speech, morally reprehensible: you hate him for being dark though it may rightfully scare you, there is no way for him to improve it.

A more common example would be saying Asian people having squinty little eyes. This is indeed hate speech and morally reprehensible, though it doesn't do much damage at all: who actually say this kind of thing these days? Not a single grown up is interested in this kind of words anyhow, it get bored really quickly.

On the other hand, it could be more damaging to say "All Chinese people are spies", but this is not really hate speech, because it is based on a perceived behavior, even if could be totally false. Let me say it again, the statement "All Chinese are spies" may break lots of hearts and it might be false, but it is not hate speech. Plus, thanks to those 007 movies, "spy" is almost complimentary term nowadays. Remeber the "True Lies" movie? You need to pretend to be a spy to hook up hot girls... "Thank you", people.

I had also come across some disturbing comments from some "white power activists" claiming they don't want people from India coming here because "We don't want shit on our streets". Clearly, this is behavior-based hash criticism, so it is not hate-speech, though due to the economy reality of India, it will need some extra ordinary efforts to make an improvement. Here I want to remind people, every nation had gone through the dark ages where there is no public sewage system, and people indeed defecate on streets, so all I can say now is, be kind to people or country who are poor. The criticism is not hate-speech, but it is lack of sympathy, you will not draw much support saying those things. Some moderate criticism on the conduct of Indian background HR/managers could be more warranted however, since it reflects on ourselves too.

But on another occasion, the same group of people had said they want to deport all colored immigrants simply because they don't like "Asian faces", that is certainly hate speech. I am under the perception that these young men may need someone to seriously guide them with their political journey, they might be emboldened by the recent victories of "far right groups", but what they were doing are not really how "far-right" works. "Far-right" is about righteous, you cannot achieve it by doing anything that is morally wrong. Trump had won the election, not really because everyone enjoys racial topics, but because the woke virus impede all valid criticism and jeopardize the very survival of human society. People like to criticize, not because they love to be racial.

After some analysis you find out, that there had been forever debates on hate-speech, simply because people think the "law" is the only standard people obey. They just underestimate the moral standard's contributing on this matter. Whatever culture background, we are all educated to modestly accept the criticism from others, while also encouraged to criticize other people even if it might result in breakdown of relationships. This is the definition of decency, and you don't need to fire up "free speech" to back it up.

This blind following of the law have other consequences too, as we frequently hear, when someone was jailed by court, we say, "Thank goodness what he had done broke the law, otherwise everyone else will do it without repercussions". See? Now good luck making laws forever if everyone had given up the moral standards as guard rails for our lives.

Finally, I want to emphasize that we need to protect free speech, not really because they are considered a "basic human right", but because he will hate you very much if you strip this right away. We protect this right, for "peace". I will compare this with the "right of private property". In some places of the world, you may be well acquainted to losing couple hundred of bucks every month due to pickpocket. In fact after a while you don't even mind that happening. However, if someone delete your post in a forum, or banned your social media account, or telling you to not to go to certain news website, your hatred against this person or the situation will be so strong that you will spend day and night to get it rectified. I've seen plenty people leaving their mother country in droves because their internet was censored, but never heard anyone left because there are too many thieves. We underestimated this basic human right, "give me liberty or give me death" is not a joke. Therefore, those who take free speech away from people, they, indeed, need to be jailed, at least longer than the thieves, for this reason.