Hate speech

In order to protect children from hate speech, a Connecticut high school blocks internet access to the National Rifle Association, the Connecticut GOP, and right-to-life groups, the Vatican, and Christianity.com, but allows access to Moms Demand Action, Newtown Action Alliance, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice America, the state Democratic party, and Islam-guide.com.

Taking lessons from the IRS, no doubt.


Grim said...

The Vatican, huh? That's an expansive hate speech policy.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I suspect the truth is disquieting in a different way. These sites were not intentionally chosen, but the algorithm that blocks sites thought their content was too close to hate speech.

There's lots of folks out there who believe mid-liberalism is the political center, and the statistical middle-of-the-road is right wing.

Tom said...

Well, they oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, so of course they're haters!

Anonymous said...

It would be naive to think this is accidental. The sites were indeed intentionally chosen, probably by a method much simpler and more direct than by designing an algorithm to cut them out. With the IRS, ATF, and EPA (Gibson) scandals as models, it is easy to see that this administration and its fellow travelers cannot be bothered with accidental discrimination. They go right for the direct cheat.

That high school, like my son's high school, seems determined to teach teenagers to disrespect authority. Their chosen method is to behave unethically and irrationally.

Where to the principals that make these idiotic decisions come from, and what kind of training do they get? There is too much of this nonsense going on for it to be random failures. This is systemic.


Texan99 said...

Tom's joking, but I suspect he's close to the truth. It's an article of faith that opposing homosexuality is hate speech, so some school bureaucrat probably didn't think twice about banning the Vatican and the state GOP, any more than she'd have hesitated to block snuff films involving kindergarteners. It's also an article of faith that Islam-bashing is hate speech. How the bureaucrats would reconcile opposing gay-bashing and coddling Islamist fundamentalism, if reconciling positions were a priority, I can't imagine. Luckily that's not important any more.

As for the NRA, well, guns are just eeeevil; whether it's hate-speech to mention them or not is irrelevant. We can't even have pictures of them any more, so of course the NRA is out. It's sort of "hate thought," the new name for "thought crimes."

Ymar Sakar said...

The Soviets used to erase pictures of people they purged, from photographs. That's a bad case of photoshopping before photoshop, but it was a way to mind control people. Obey or else. If you say there's a person there, nobody will agree with you, so you either obey society or be considered crazy and soon to be disposed of.

By elevating the command of the regime above a person's conscience and memory itself, many things can be commanded of humans that would otherwise seem insane or suitable only for zombie drones.

Censorship was to be celebrated, when their side was being censored and they were losing porn profits. When it comes to them censoring others, if it is profitable, it is good. The Leftist dogma doesn't have to make sense. They have 1000 versions of it, not all of it compatible.

Texan99 said...

Gaslighting. It's very crazy-making. We ought to go on speaking the unspeakable as often as possible, for our own clarity of mind and to keep up each other's morale.

Gringo said...

There's lots of folks out there who believe mid-liberalism is the political center, and the statistical middle-of-the-road is right wing.

Indeed. I recall one blog commenter who maintained that Obama was a moderate. You know, the same person who who in 2007 had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate.

Regarding "haters"- I recall a political discussion with a friend who is a staunch Democrat. He was not happy that Mexico had released some drug kingpin from jail- failed state, DEA agents killed in Mexico etc. I replied that the US should not expect Mexico to follow the US's directives on drug policy after the Fast and Furious operation, where guns which were sold to Mexican drug dealers were used to kill operatives of the Mexican government. I was called a "hater" for stating that.