Brickbats

Brickbat: Normalizing Censorship

|

The New Zealand government has proposed tougher penalties for hate speech. Currently, a conviction for hate speech brings a 7,000 New Zealand dollar ($4,900) fine and a maximum of three months in prison. The government wants that changed to a NZ$50,000 ($35,000) fine and a maximum of three years in prison. The proposal would also expand the definition of hate speech. The law presently says that hate speech is speech that will "excite hostility" or "bring into contempt" people because of their race or ethnicity. The proposal will ban speech that normalizes hatred. "Normalizing hatred means that, if I were to try and convince you to hate someone, and you didn't already hold that feeling, then I have changed your opinion. [Or] you may already hold that opinion and I may want to reinforce that opinion with you, and that is normalizing," said Justice Minister Kris Faafoi.

NEXT: The Government Should Stop Telling Facebook To Suppress COVID-19 'Misinformation'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …hate speech is speech that will “excite hostility” or “bring into contempt” people because of their race or ethnicity. The proposal will ban speech that normalizes hatred.

    Finally, someone is serious about fighting Critical Race Theory.

    1. Sportswriters hardest hit:

      All Blacks destroy Aussies.

    2. This may be the kiwi need to fight CRT.

  2. The law presently says that hate speech is speech that will “excite hostility” or “bring into contempt” people because of their race or ethnicity. The proposal will ban speech that normalizes hatred.

    I was worried there for a minute that they were focusing solely on race and ethnicity when there are a million more reasons to dislike someone and all of them must be banned. The obvious ones are of course religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin and handicap, but you can throw in weight, height, color of hair, handedness, shoe size, fashion sense, haircut, acuteness of vision, dexterity or lack thereof, ability to play baseball, wealth, health, singing ability, political positions and so much, much more. There should be a law making it illegal to criticize anybody – hell just make it a law that you’re not allowed to even talk to anybody or even look at anybody – just sit there and be quiet. And don’t think I didn’t see you passing that note to your neighbor you little shit!

    1. Actually that’s close to the Jewish stricture against lush an hora. (I see now it’s spelled “lashon hara” in Wikipedia, but I was constructing it similarly to “ken an hora”.) Basically it means you shouldn’t speak ill of others behind their backs, but it winds up getting extended to not speaking of others at all, lest someone take it badly or that it wind up uncomplimentary by omission.

      1. >>to not speaking of others at all

        a priest told me “not bearing false witness” meant not speaking about a third person who was not present

        1. Again, another one that will get shelved, whether the priests like it or not.

        2. It’s supposed to mean not accusing someone of something that you know is not true. For example, “I saw him steal that.” And you actually know he didn’t steal, or you weren’t even present to see the theft.

          1. Well, priests have a vested interest in mak8ng it much broader. Can’t have the altar boys talking about them to the police.

      2. I imagine this one got shelved post-1945.

    2. Too true.

      Take equity far enough and anyone has the right to demand anything from anyone else, including sex.

      1. “Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more.”

        1. (Star Trek theme) I am smart. Much smarter than yooooou. Hibbert!

          1. That’s “Herbert!-Herbert!-Herbert!”

        2. Yes, well, Jews have a way of writing themselves into the role of smartest person in the room pretty much every chance they get and no matter how ridiculous their position.

          1. You know who would write them out and also held absurd positions?

  3. “Normalizing hatred means that, if I were to try and convince you to hate someone, and you didn’t already hold that feeling, then I have changed your opinion.”

    So the Washington Post would be in big trouble, as would many of the folks who comment there.

    1. As is that law itself, which encourages hating haters.

      1. Sounds like a Taylor Swift song in the making.

  4. Sounds like a meanz to an enz.

    1. Sounds like a bunch of nanny authoritarians jerking each other off.

  5. “Normalizing hatred means that, if I were to try and convince you to hate someone, and you didn’t already hold that feeling, then I have changed your opinion. [Or] you may already hold that opinion and I may want to reinforce that opinion with you, and that is normalizing,” said Justice Minister Kris Faafoi.

    Serious question: What is the legal definition of “hate”?

    1. Is your skin whiter, your gender maler, or your bank account bigger than the other party? If so, you hate them.

  6. Hate speach as defined by the newspeak dictionary, 2021 edition.

  7. I guess Neo-Nazis must be celebrating this since you’re no longer allowed to attempt to persuade people that Hitler wasn’t a fine fellow.

  8. Forbidden!

    While decrying censorship, the so-called conservative outlets in the media stifle commentary publish articles about race but forbid factual comments about racism. In doing so, they support those whom they claim they oppose and sabotage those whom they claim they support. If you want the truth about racial differences, you won’t find it in the so-called conservative media.

    Are there biological differences among the races? Yes, as documented scientifically.* Any nation that denies reality dooms itself to a dismal destiny.

    *Hilliard CB: “Genetic Blind Spots”. American Scientist 109: 198-200 (July-August 2021)

    Is there a scientific way to deal with racial differences consistent with American ideals and values? As described in detail in Retribution Fever, the answer is, Yes.

    1. Dwarves get +1 constitution and elves get +1 dexterity.

    2. Let me guess. Your “race” is considered smarter by these people.

  9. “Normalizing hatred means that, if I were to try and convince you to hate someone, and you didn’t already hold that feeling, then I have changed your opinion. [Or] you may already hold that opinion and I may want to reinforce that opinion with you, and that is normalizing,”

    Then know what would be the most effective way of normalizing it? Saying that other people hold that opinion. That can be done by people who share that opinion or people who complain about its being widespread. Which means that critics of hate speech would be among the most effective at normalizing it.

    It really does work both ways. A friend of mine participated ~50 years ago to sneak around other Boston neighborhoods at night and graffiti walls with racist sentiment. The idea was to get people in the neighborhood to think their neighbors had done it, and thereby make the people there more comfortable expressing similar opinions. Of course it probably also spread alarm among those in the neighborhood offended by such ideas and who therefore thought they had a lot of racists around them. Truly a scheme worthy of Operation Mindfuck from Illuminatus!, and contemporary with it.

    1. Massholes gonna masshole. If there was a city that needed the racial pot stirred more it was Boston…

  10. ” a conviction for hate speech brings a 7,000 New Zealand dollar ($4,900) fine and a maximum of three months in prison. The government wants that changed to a NZ$50,000 ($35,000) fine and a maximum of three years in prison.

    Just burn them as witches.

    1. Takes a village [to burn a witch].

  11. This may sound a bit radical to some; but, a while back I began to promoting a revision to the first amendment so as to include the right to vote (b/c, after all, one does make a statement, though said statement is nonverbal, when casting said vote).

    1. So, how would that work? You can just vote any time you want for whatever you want and congress can make no law about it? How’s that going to work?

      I think it’s kind of a mistake to consider voting a right. It’s certainly not a natural right. I’d call it a privilege of citizenship. Rights, as I would define them, are not things that other people have to enable you to do. Those are privileges and entitlements.

  12. I saw the title and thought this was a brickbat about Reason.

    1. Looks like Charles Oliver isn’t being a team player. ENB and Sullum are going to have to have a little sit down with him.

  13. It’s just kids in college, they’ll grow out of it. Stay the course, everything will be fine.

    1. The inmates are running the asylum.

  14. Jesus, do these people think Orwell was writing Utopian fiction?

    1. I’ve come around to enjoying the show; so let them have their little experiment and let’s see how it turns out.

      1. Not such a good idea. That was what I figured after 9/11…. let them have their tizzy then we can all get back to life. But the Patriot Act and other abominations came to stay, and after covid, the sheep just clamor for more.

  15. So they read your mind to determine if you’re guilty?

  16. Good thing I’ve never been to New Zealand because I’ve often told work colleagues that I hate Mondays. Also, I’ve more than once reminded them that Garfield, the cat from the comic strip, also always hated Mondays, which means I’m normalizing hatred for a particular day of the week.

    1. And since Monday was named for the Moon, it follows that you are promoting hatred of the Man in the Moon and arguably, people born under any Moon sign other than the New Moon, which isn’t visible. And if you hate the Moon, you must also hate Were-Wolves which, according to the old poem, may metamorph “when the Moon is full and bright.”

      So why do you hate Michael J. Fox as Teen Wolf?

  17. Serious question: What is the legal definition of “hate”?

  18. Hatred is defined by conflict. Conflict in speech only results from lies.

    By definition, truth cannot ever be misinformation a lie. Truth cannot result in conflict.

    Censorship of truth, whether by making the sharing of irrefutable evidence a crime or by swearing illegal oaths of secrecy is the only way to perpetuate the worlds biggest lies, conspiracies.

Please to post comments