Social gatekeepers such as politicians and bureaucrats use charges of “hate speech” to legitimize their roles as gatekeepers, and to maintain the gap between the rich and the rest
You are guilty of “hate speech” if you question any claim by your owners or by the gatekeepers (e.g. the claim that Arabs with box cutters did 9-11, or that the U.S. government is “bankrupt,” or that six millions Jews were gassed during World War II, etc, etc, etc).
You are guilty of “hate speech” if you notice that the emperor has no clothes.
“Hate speech” is a political notion. It is today’s equivalent for “witchery,” “sedition,” and “disrespecting the crown.”
Throughout history, and around the world, maintaining the gap between the rich and the rest has always depended on controlling the exchange of money, goods, services, ideas, and information. Today’s laws against “hate speech” are used to prevent the free exchange of information on the Internet.
China’s government censors the Internet, and imprisons people who question the Communist Party. Meanwhile European governments imprison people who question the “holocaust”™ and Israeli atrocities. The U.S. government wants to imprison (or already has) whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, and many more. During both world wars, all belligerent nations imprisoned people who questioned the war.
The terminology changes over the years, but the rationale is always the same. Communication between the peasants must be controlled in order to “counter terrorism,” and to maintain “national security” (i.e. to maintain the gap between the rich and the rest).
On 31 May 2016 the European Commission produced a guide on countering “hate speech online” that requires companies to remove items flagged as “hate speech” from social networks within 24 hours, or else company executives will be imprisoned. The guide has been signed by internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft.
As always, the definition of “hate speech” is dictated by whoever is in power. (In Europe, questioning the “holocaust”™ is “hate speech,” but denying the 1915 Armenian genocide is not.)
Outlawed speech includes “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes … when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred.”
Thus, you may condone war crimes committed by the West, but you may not condone anything that the perpetrators of the war crimes do not want you to condone. The hypocrisy and Orwellian absurdity is boundless.
“This is a historic agreement that could not arrive at a better time,” said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress. “We have seen a massive growth of online hate speech in recent years, and it is very important that governments, law enforcement agencies and online companies work in tandem to make the internet a safer space for all.
“Massive growth of online hate speech” means a slight increase in the free exchange of truth and information.
To some extent, this latest idiocy is part of a broader European effort to wrest control of the Internet away from the Americans. European elitists resent American companies’ domination of the Internet. They see this domination as an economic and a cultural threat. For example, they don’t want European kids growing up to question the “holocaust,”™ or any other religion that Euro-elitists impose on them.