I believe the Macleans Magazine article was a dumb article, but nevertheless it has the right to be stupid, and its free speech - no matter how stupid - should be protected. This case does bring to mind the idea of a Fairness Doctrine. I do believe that minority views deserve protection. For example, in Nazi Germany the regime itself had free speech and used its own free speech to bully and persecute minority views to the point of obliterating them. There needs to be some natural checks and balances.
I dislike the term 'hate speech'; it conveys a certain Orwellian sensibility. The idea that 'hate' is somehow an adjective - that when attached to speech - makes the speech censorable...is frighteningly chilling. If I stand up with passion and cry out angrily 'Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!' - is that too not hate speech? Does it not offend the establishment? Does it not incite people to defy a certain well-established authority?
If LOUD CONTROVERSIAL PASSIONATE SPEECH is not protected and given freedom - then there's no free speech. What value is free speech, if in a time of crisis and controversy, it is censored. What value is free speech, if it something relegated to the realm of idle chit chat. I don't want to shout fire in a crowded theatre, but I do in fact want the right to shout fire.
Hate is a strong ugly emotion, but I have always found the real moral culprit to be found in the passivity and the banality of carrying out evil deeds - not something so much in the passions of those who at least care enough to be angry or outraged. I fear the sheep more than I do the lions. The lions might sometimes fight me and and try kill me, but the sheep will always happily lead me to the slaughterhouse.
One's right to bear arms is likewise very important. That's why it was so prominently placed in the constitution. Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Payne...were all guilty of 'hate speech.' I prefer,however, to strip it of such Orwellian terminology and just call it 'passionate speech.' Think about it: Is there any passionate speech concerning government or social injustice that does not involve some mixed feelings of hate, outrage, love or anger?
I wouldn't blame the Marxist crowd inasmuch the Neo-Liberal/Conservative establishment folks. Eugene Debs went to prison for speaking out aginst WW1 and the McCarthy era basically rooted out and destroyed what could have developed into an authentic American Labour/Socialist Party. You'll not find a Marxist/Socialist News Anchor or Channel in the U.S.A. Such views were basically relentlessly purged during the Cold War era. In fact, I am sad to say that a lot of the social programs that could have been used to address 'class' in America have become entangled in 'race' and 'political correctness.' Marx, himself did not study the American revolution so much because he felt it was tainted by the issues of the planter ruling class and all their attendant problems.
While I don't like the old Black Panther Party, I do respect the fact that even the Black Panthers supported the 2nd Amendment and real Free Speech.
I just wish I could say the same thing about my conservative Congressman, who seems to only care about lots of money, a superficial bourgoise reputation, and getting re-elected over and over and over again...at my expense.
