Time to Get Off the Stage

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Robert Ringer Comments (21)

Font:

When the perpetually angry Howard Dean made his denture-dropping statement that “Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution,” I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was just hoping to reach low-information voters with his words of wisdom. Certainly, anyone with a thimbleful of knowledge would laugh at such a statement.

Hey, Howard, guess what? This isn’t 1960 anymore; it’s the 21st century, and the average voter is armed with a computer, the Internet, and cable TV. Today, many of the most deplorable common folk know more than most of the highly paid anchors on television.

Obviously, the Constitution protects all speech, no matter how offensive anyone might believe it to be. That’s easily verified by simply checking the Constitution itself. The bigger, underlying question is, what is hate speech, anyway? To answer that, let’s back up a second.

Whenever someone refers to the term hate speech, for starters he is basing his comment on a false assumption — the assumption that hate speech can be defined objectively. It can’t. That’s right, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” It’s a figment of the liberal’s subjective imagination.

What I think of as hateful, you may think is good, and vice versa. It always gets back to that same old Ayn Rand question, “Who shall decide?” Chuckie Schumer? Nutty Nancy? Pocahontas? Or maybe Tom Perez or Perez Hilton, depending upon the degree of vulgarity you enjoy?

Hmm … or how about letting Madonna make the decision. In the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the court ruled that the only words that are off limits are those that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” So if I’m Madonna’s attorney, I’m going to argue that her saying that she’s “thought an awful lot about bombing the White House” isn’t hate speech. After all, she’s only thought about; she hasn’t actually encouraged people to do it.

The term “hate crime” is even more nebulous. Here’s a pretty typical definition of “hate crime”: “a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.”

First of all, no one can say for certain what’s in a person’s mind. But, more important, if someone murders his next-door neighbor, does it really matter why he murdered him? Dead is dead. It’s a bit bizarre that if an attorney can convince a court that his client didn’t hate his next-door neighbor when he murdered him, he should get a lighter sentence.

What I find fascinating is that while Howard Dean is trying to stop the Ann Coulters of the world from speaking freely, millions of violent and obscene liberals defy the handful of exceptions to First Amendment protection on a daily basis, meaning that they really are guilty of hate speech according to the Constitution. Yet, rarely is anyone prosecuted for his or her “hate speech” or “hate crimes.”

Howard, you and I spent a couple of minutes on an elevator together a few years back, and I was surprised and impressed with your good behavior. (Methinks the fact that you were speaking at a conservative/libertarian conference had something to do with it.)

So, as a favor to you, and with goodwill in my heart, allow me to say in the humblest possible way that it’s time for you to get off the stage and SHUT UP! And please — please — take Horrible Hillary with you. It really is time for you tired old lunatics to voluntarily put yourselves out to pasture.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

21 responses to “Time to Get Off the Stage”

  1. Reality Seeker says:

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” — G. Orwell

  2. Sorry, Mr. Ringer, but I think you misspelled a nickname in the fifth paragraph: I usually hear that disturbed woman referred to as Fauxcahontas.

    • Andy AJ Wallace says:

      Or Lie-awatha!

      • Rocketman says:

        Ya beat me to it AJ. I've been calling her that for the last 3 years ever since it was revealed that she claimed that she was part American Indian to be able to get into law school.

  3. I'm reminded that certain of my "smart alecy" males students used to say during certain of our "Socratic Dialogues", "Well, Mr. V, everything is relative, isn't it?" And I would invariable reply, "No, some things, ideas, concepts, etc., ARE better than others." Good judgement, then, in relation to the pragmatic view is the next step. "What works (best) is true!" So, the subject here, seems to me, is not a simple matter. Solid, albeit subjective, thinking comes to bear. Values may be subjective, but, I contend, some values ARE better than others.

  4. Mic says:

    "hate speech" to liberals has about the same meaning as "racists" which is to say any speech THEY don't like or anytime you disagree with their ideology. Let us not forget that during Obama's reign of terror simply DISAGREEING with his policies made you racist! So I suspect the liberals definition of "hate speech" will have the same nebulous definition and will be used against anyone that simply disagrees with their policies.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Mic, you have summarized the issue in a nutshell. Libtards demand agreement with their agenda, and anyone who deviates is racist, homophobic, deplorable, and guilty of hate speech. The whole term, "hate crime" or "hate speech" is completely irrelevant. Crime is crime and if one is violated, restitution must be paid, and justice (can't be delivered by the State and its apparatchiks) served. All speech is protected, and while many things are best left unsaid, it is not "progressive" Libtards that get to decide what is acceptable.

  5. Gene says:

    Amen!!

  6. TheLookOut says:

    The radical left hates all speech that questions their speech.

  7. Mike says:

    How about Colbert's recent rant or Ashley Judd's embarrassing display or Madonna's threat to blow up the white house? I guess they're exempt from hateful speech.

  8. texas wolfie says:

    And how about this quote I believe from Jimmy Kimmel, no one can call a black man the "N" word except another "N". Amazing how that is somehow ok, and even funny to some.

  9. John E. Gabor says:

    "…if an attorney can convince a court that his client didn’t hate his next-door neighbor when he murdered him, he should get a lighter sentence." Brilliant deconstruction. Loved it.

    • Jean says:

      The irony of that statement, of course, is that truly sociopathic people (e.g. serial killers) don't hate anyone in particular. They just love to torture, rape and kill. Their victims are ones of opportunity, not any particular race, creed or sex. So logically, raging psychopaths are "less dangerous" to liberals than a bigot who talks a lot, maybe follows through with vandalism, but doesn't kill anyone.

  10. Scott theczech says:

    This may be a good time to look at a couple of definitions, after all, words have meaning.
    Hate:
    a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing had a great hate of hard work
    Despise:
    1: to look down on with contempt or aversion despised the weak
    2: to regard as negligible, worthless, or distasteful despises organized religion
    Loathe:
    : to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : detest

    I don't see crime or intent of a crime in any of these definitions of the verbs and transitive verbs involving a human emotion, do you? Thoughts, words and actions are distinct, however one can lead to another.
    credit: Merriam-Webster

    • Clay Ziegler says:

      To “theczech,”

      I love your logic; straightforward, and concise. But, as you know, straightforwardness, and conciseness, will never “fly” with a liberal (aka: Democrat).

      And, as you know; if you don’t agree with their assertation, you are a criminal.

      Our advanced civilization has been able to develop the Unclear Bomb, and the Neutron Bomb. I believe it’s about time we develop the “Far Too Liberal Bomb,” and set it off appropriately! I mean, seriously; Pocahontas (Fauxcahontas) and Hilary are still on this planet. Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

      It’s about time to get rid of one miserable c**t, and her lesbian sister. And, I’ll bet you that, Billy Clinton would like it too.

    • Clay Ziegler says:

      To “theczech,”

      Please forgive the misspelling; it should read “Nuclear Bomb.”

      Clay Ziegler
      Writer/Copywriter

  11. Judith Davies says:

    Howard Dean Who? Really enjoy your articles, Robert. You are too kind to give Mr. Ignorance press! He does not deserve your precious time. Lucky him…you still care…

  12. Wayne says:

    From above.
    This isn’t 1960 anymore
    Obviously, the Constitution protects all speech,
    “Who shall decide?”
    the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the court ruled that the only words that are off limits are those that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
    This isn’t 1960 anymore
    I now pose, we are no longer a nation of law (or constitutional limits) but a nation of creative rulings. Especially claiming rights of protective classes (which are protected) and not that of a singular citizen not of a protected class (which are not now protected). Ref: to numerous, Title 1983 cases, dismissals to mention
    So true sadly, "This isn’t 1960 anymore", and not surely "1942". Maybe I tearfully long for 1776. Prior to the Articles of Confederation.

  13. TN Ray says:

    Hate speech, hate crimes. Seems like a concept to allow dictators to control any speech or action they don't like. Or, maybe just a way to drum up endless controversy by opposing lawyers while the meter is running. If hate speech were an actual crime, Steven Colbert should be fired by CBS (which he should be just for being a tasteless pig)…then sent to prison.

  14. Jose Jackson says:

    Anything to do with Hollyweird and Madison Ave, I drop like a hot rock. No tv for me. And RR, a senior moment? Smartphones are internet and computer combined. Unnecessary added verbiage there RR. OMG, RR is human! Still much better though than 99.999 % of the rest of us homonoids! Guts and daily discipline with plenty of canei. Constant and never ending improvement! And willingness to share it with the world. No one can say you are a hoarder of knowledge or a Sneetch.

  15. Scott says:

    Great insight

Leave a Reply