“There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment” minder Eugene Volokh den tidligere Vermont guvenør om i Washington Post.

One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans. As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the First Amendment’s tradition of “protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’ ” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” viewpoints.

En Yougov undersøgelse foretaget i skyggen af urolighederne i Charlottesville, USA, viser at de fleste amerikanere vil forbyde ‘hate-speech’, eller hadtale om man vil. Som det ikke var bekymrende nok, så viser samme undersøgelse at der er uenighed om, hvad der kan karakteriseres som hadtale. Amerikanerne finder både Ku Klux Klan og ISIS usmageligt og svarer ja til at forbyde dem taletid i deres nabolag, men ellers karakteriseres hadtale, som det der er ekstremt fra folks egen politiske observans.

Hvad der engang var social kontrol gennem almindelig sædelighed mellem mennesker for at få et samfund til at fungere er med de sociale medier blevet frugtbar jord for alle med hang til moralpanik, at udskamme hvem som helst som en paria. Yougovs undersøgelse forholder sig desværre ikke til Antifa, men det er venstrefløjens politiske æstetik, der i øjeblikket dominerer offentlighedens syn på hadtale og ekstremisme, ikke blot i Europa, men også i USA. Og hvad venstrefløjen engang kaldte storkapitalen lever, som politikerne af at have et forhold til offentligheden, så både stat og storkapital efterkommer venstrefløjens politiske æstetik.

John Nolte skriver i Breitbart

From President Trump to George Zimmerman to Antifa, the Democrat Party and its media have surrendered all claims of the moral high ground on the issue of due process and have even embraced (as long as it is against the correct people, meaning everyone from neo-Nazis to Trump supporters) violent vigilantism. Then — like something out of Robocop or Demolition Man — there is the issue of how those who call themselves progressive and liberals cheer on corporations that have seized control of how Americans communicate and how those corporations have used that control to censor us.

Case in point, a headline I never thought I would read at the left-wing Guardian:

The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?

Keep in mind that this is the same Guardian whose editorial board just last week cheered the decision to “censor the Internet.”

The issue, in this specific case, involves Stormfront and the Daily Stormer, two white supremacist websites booted off the internet by their web hosts. Now that no one will host these racist sites, the Daily Stormer has been forced to retreat to what’s known as the Dark Net, which makes it inaccessible to most everyone.

But as the Guardian points out, this corporate censorship is not just taking place against neo-Nazis. Twitter and Facebook have become the 21st-century versions of Ma Bell, or the telephone (in other words, the primary means by which Americans communicate with one another) and both sites have become notorious censors and scolds. Under the guise of “hate speech” and the demonic media’s ever-expanding definition of the “alt-right,” today’s Ma Bells are always monitoring your phone calls and warning you not to say “this” or “that” under the threat of cutting your telephone wires altogether.

(…)

The Silicon Valley robber barons and the media are scheming to continue to expand the definitions of hate speech and the alt-right to include opinions and people they do not like. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the tip of this spear, an organization the establishment media takes seriously for only one cynical reason — because it gives them the cover they so desire to label those of us who do not hold the “correct” views on immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action and the welfare state, as part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood. And by extension, this makes the traditional conservatives and Christians part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood.

See where this is going? And it is happening in ways big and small.

Som Theodore Kupfer bemærker i National Review, så gavner indskrænkningen af ytringsfriheden ingen på længere sigt, end de der bare vil have den indskrænket. Det selverklærede moralpoliti, mest fra venstrefløjen, antager at det er dem selv, der ender med den totale magt over sædeligheden, men både storkapitalen og stater skal overleve og nye vinde blæser hele tiden. Det er højrefløjen der har stået først for skud, fordi den udfordrede venstrefløjens konsensus og og afslørede statens forræderi af nationen. Terrortruslen tvinger staterne til at indskrænke almindelig muslimsk forkyndelse og som Antifa er ved at overspille deres kort, især i USA, er sikkerhedstjensterne også begyndt at fokusere på de venstreradikale sværmerier.

Dirty Harry siger “opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one!” - præcis derfor ender indskrænkningen af ytringsfrihed aldrig, når man først er begyndt er frygte een mening.