Opposition as 'hate speech'
 

Opposition as 'hate speech'

The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews.

Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on "hate speech" over cable TV and right-leaning talk-radio airwaves. President Obama's speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.

Last month an outfit called "So We Might See" conducted a nationwide fast to protest "media violence" -- specifically, "anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts."

The group's ire is aimed at Fox News and conservative talk-show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government's systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions against illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt...rce=rss&feed=5

...

"anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts."

This is truly bizzare. In just one sentence, these scum define "hate speech" as the use of flawed arguments that appeal to fears rather than facts. But how do you determine if arguments are flawed if you are not allowed to present them and how do you know if the fears are not factual unless you examine the arguments. But nobody challanges the intellectual flaws of such a definition and never mind its implications for the moral and intellectual foundations that drive the legal guarantees of free speech.

These dirt bags are unfit to be making demands on the US public and its citizens and need a steady stream of "hate speech" poured on them for the gratiification of a greatly offended US citizenry.