Who Defines “Offensive and Hate”?
Germany has just approved an online hate speech law, scary considering history in Europe and here in the USA.
Both continents have a scary history of government defining free speech, freedom of assembly, peaceful assembly etc… and it is not pretty. Don’t get me wrong blocking highways etc.., clinics not okay because people can die, ambulances, people who are taking people to the hospital, doctors, nurses trying to get to work need to get to where they can save lives. Blocking government building entrances, courthouse entrances, obstruction of justice, so do not approve and in those cases, yes the government needs to be firm and disperse that, move that out of those areas, pronto and firmly! However, when you have a law that is a general, or vague, or says that you can’t speak ill of a particular faith or group of people that have a particular lifestyle, such as the LGBT community because if you do wooo is you, huge problem. You have in essence said certain groups have privilege over others, and no longer are you a democracy or even a democratic republic at that point. You start to veer into being a dictatorship. If speech is punished, what’s next? Pastors in Europe are already under persecution for speaking the truth of the Gospel, how far will it go? What is offensive to me, is not offensive to all, so the offense is my problem not everyone else’s and if I am such a friggin big baby and snowflake that I can’t handle some insults, even some punches against my faith, I am a sad sack of potatoes as they used to say. Does that mean all speech is okay? No, and when severed heads of those in authority appear or images on T-shirts that they be shot appear, that is wrong, ethically, morally every which way. Here is the problem, government being the solution.
It used to be that in schools, in churches, in the homes, there was a strong teaching of respect for authority and community was very strong, close knit community, family, civics taught in school from a true Classic Liberal Conservative Constitutional perspective of agree to disagree, reject the sin, but love the sinner, some of the things that make society positive. When the church actually wasn’t trying to be of the world, hip and cool, they were, including the Roman Catholic Church a lighthouse to make clear moral boundaries, don’t give me the abuse thing, that is individuals and in every organization you have bad apples, but the teachings, the core of the teachings of the Magisterium and the core Teaching of the faith, of the Judeo-Christian faith had value to a close knit, solid, family oriented society, and respect for authority. Government can’t solve what ails us, it can’t eradicate the “failings” of our human nature, or any of that crap, so to have anyone think a government body or their laws can actually stop bullying, change patterns of behavior, mindset is beyond stupidity. Only a deeply spiritual core and respect for authority, for law and order, for each person made in the image of God, a unique and special person, each of us seeing that in ourselves, loving ourselves in that respect, not narcissistic, but in Agape Love, same with others. We don’t have to like everyone, so when Jesus says love the “enemy” he is not saying agree with and like everyone, but also don’t hate, don’t want revenge, don’t create situations where the government then feels it has to go all crazy and create crazy legislation because society is a bunch of big babies and snowflakes etc…, pray for others who are in a place of hate, anger, sinfulness etc…pray for them, the least we can do. To have government try to legislate mindset and perfect behavior will have a chilling backlash and history shows us that. May we never have to have hate speech laws or any such nonsense that will create potentially another World War.