« | »

Democrats Introduce Bill To Ban Hate Speech In Media

From an article appearing last week in the industry magazine, Broadcasting & Cable:

Markey Introduces Hate Speech Report Bill

By John Eggerton | April 16, 2014

The former chair of the House communications subcommittee wants the government to look into so-called hate speech on broadcast, cable and the Internet and offer up ways to "address" that use of telecommunications.

In the wake of the Kansas shootings, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill, The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219), that would update a two-decade old report on the role of telecommunications—the Internet, radio and TV—"in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation."

When they try to ram through this bill, it won’t be the Kansas shooter, Mr. Miller/Cross, they cite. It will be Donald Sterling.

In 1992, Markey, then a member of the House, used the Telecommunications Authorization Act to direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to "examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes."

1992 practically being the birth of the internet.

He wants his new standalone bill, which is supported by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), to update that report. “We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States," Markey said, "which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment."

The bill wants the report to look at both broadcast and cable speech, including public access TV, over which cable operators have little control, as well as commercial mobile services.

NTIA would have a year to come up with the report and send copies to the House and Senate Justice and Commerce (Energy & Commerce in the House) committees.

Under this bill the (Orwellian-sounding) National Telecommunications and Information Administration would be required to submit a report to Congress on “the use of telecommunications” “to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.” And it would also recommend steps for Congress to take that are “appropriate and necessary to address such use of telecommunications.” 

Isn’t that wonderful? What could go wrong? And never mind that this is precisely in contradiction of the First Amendment.

By the way prosecutors already have the authority to prosecute threats made via telecommunications, including the internet. So there is no clear need for this law, as far as public safety is concerned.

The alleged shooter in the Kansas City attack was reported to be Frazier Glenn Cross, who as Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., ran as a white supremacist write-in senatorial candidate from Missouri. Miller/Cross had already been denied a broadcast platform for views thanks to a combination of Missouri broadcasters and the FCC.

Would it be too far-fetched to suggest that Mr. Miller/Cross might not have gone completely over the edge if he had been allowed to vent? (This question probably just got us put on somebody’s list.)

Back in 2010, the FCC advised Missouri broadcasters that it “would not be unreasonable” for them to find that he was not a bona fide candidate and did not qualify for mandatory airtime under FCC rules, according to FCC sources at the time.

Stations have to make commercial airtime available to bona fide candidates, but after Missouri broadcasters (and the state Attorney General) sought a declaratory ruling that he was not a candidate and would not qualify for airtime, the FCC provided the corroborating advice informally, which sometimes happens with political ad questions because time is usually of the essence.

So why do we need this new law?

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, May 1st, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Democrats Introduce Bill To Ban Hate Speech In Media”

  1. chainsaw

    Is being a celeb and wearing a “white man is evil” pendant considered hate speech?

  2. mr_bill

    What is Spike Lee going to do if this passes? Just kidding, his “hate speech” will still be allowed.

  3. .. because this worked out so well in 1930s Germany ..

  4. captstubby

    “the use of telecommunications” “to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.” And it would also recommend steps for Congress to take that are “appropriate and necessary to address such use of telecommunications.”

    1984

    It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals. They use psychology and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and status quo,
    even only by thought,

    The telescreens (in every public area, and the quarters of the Party’s members), have hidden microphones and cameras. These devices, alongside informers, permit the Thought Police to spy upon everyone and so identify anyone who might endanger the Party’s régime; children, most of all, are indoctrinated to spy and inform on suspected thought-criminals – especially their parents.
    The Thought Police also target and eliminate highly intelligent people, since they may come to realize how the Party is exploiting them
    The Thought Police generally interfere very little with the Proles, (84 % of population), although a few agents always move among them, spreading false rumours, identifying and eliminating any individual deemed capable of independent thought or rebellion against the Party.
    proles’ quarters are generally free of telescreens, since they are not expected to understand their exploitation as cheap labour by the Party, and thereby unable or unwilling to organize resistance. Their functions are simple: work and breed. They care little about anything but home and family, neighbour quarrels, films, football, beer, lottery tickets, and other such bread and circuses. They are not required to express support for the Party beyond mild patriotism; the Party creates meaningless entertainment, songs, novels and even pornography for the proles—all written by machines except for pornography, which is compiled by members of the Outer Party and accessible only by workers in Pornosec.

    In order to remove any possibility of creating martyrs, whose memories could be used as a rallying cause against the Party, the Thought Police gradually wear down the will of political prisoners in the Ministry of Love through torture, conversations, degradation, and finally, Room 101. The methods are designed to eventually make the prisoner genuinely accept Party ideology, and come to love Big Brother, and not merely confess. After being released back into society for a short while, they are re-arrested, charged with new offences, and executed. All people who knew them forget them through crimestop, and all records are destroyed and replaced with falsified records by the Ministry of Truth. Their bodies are disposed of via cremation.
    The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
    Crimestop” means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.

    “He(Winston Smith) set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions — ‘the Party says the earth is flat’, ‘the party says that ice is heavier than water’ — and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.”

  5. Enthalpy

    Fine. Make consideration of this legislation contingent upon Senate and House members loss protection of The Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution ( Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). We’d hear no more from the slime, Harry Reid.

  6. canary

    Senator Ed Markey’s hate speech was telling global warmer deniers to live in another country.

    This speech by Markey might cause blood in the streets for anyone that might believe he’s serious.

    Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that overturns the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet.
    However, I won’t physically rise, because I’m worried that Republicans will overturn the law of gravity, sending us floating about the room.
    I won’t call for the sunlight of additional hearings, for fear that Republicans might excommunicate the finding that the Earth revolves around the sun.
    Instead, I’ll embody Newton’s third law of motion and be an equal and opposing force against this attack on science and on laws that will reduce America’s importation of foreign oil.
    This bill will live in the House while simultaneously being dead in the Senate. It will be a legislative Schrodinger’s cat killed by the quantum mechanics of the legislative process!
    Arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause us to rise from our seats today. But with this bill, pollution levels will rise. Oil imports will rise. Temperatures will rise.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. That is, unless a rejection of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is somewhere in the chair’s amendment pile.

    • captstubby

      Top Marks canary .
      you just raised the bar this weekend.

      “a legislative Schrodinger’s cat ”
      i wish i though of that.

      but in a parallel Multi universe, i probably will.

      LOL


« Front Page | To Top
« | »