Leftists don’t even make much of a pretense anymore; they don’t believe in the freedom of speech, and they mean to deny it to their political opponents. This is by far the most disturbing aspect of their agenda, for without the freedom to dissent, a tyrant can operate without any restraint whatsoever. Without the freedom of speech, there simply is no free society.
The latest example of the Left’s war on dissent comes from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Reparations), who has just introduced a bill in the House, the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023.” Only vicious racists could possibly object to combating white supremacy, right? Actually, the bill is cleverly framed, but like so many other Congressional initiatives, it’s far more insidious than its name would suggest.
The bill is designed to “prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.” The framers of the bill were thoughtful enough to provide a helpful explanation: “A person engages in a white supremacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy ideology has motivated the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effectuated, would have constituted a crime.”
All right. But how is it going to be determined whether or not “white supremacy ideology” motivated someone? We have been told repeatedly that “white supremacists,” also known as “domestic violent extremists,” are the biggest terror threat the nation faces today. Old Joe Biden, Gestapo chief Merrick Garland, and the FBI have all said this, and none of them would lie to us, now, would they? But with the Biden administration so eager to portray white supremacists as this massive threat, how can we be sure that administration officials won’t be shoehorning cases into this paradigm in order to justify their claims?
This has already happened. In November 2021, FBI and Homeland Security Department officials increased investigations of “domestic extremists,” reiterating the claim that they are today’s foremost terror threat. The only thing lacking in this scenario has been actual white supremacist terrorists in any significant number. The FBI, however, has appeared ready, even eager to supply them: Whistleblowers have revealed that Old Joe’s pure-as-the-driven-snow feds have been hard at work, pressuring agents to classify cases as “domestic violent extremism” (DVE) when they weren’t, and rewarding them when they do. That’s how you create a white supremacist terror threat.
In light of that, couldn’t Jackson Lee’s bill, if it became law, quite easily become the pretext for the persecution of people who expressed views that the ruling party disliked? The dissidents would be claimed to be operating according to the “white supremacy ideology” and prosecuted accordingly.
Jackson Lee might respond that any law can be abused, but her bill has more problematic aspects than just that. Apparently she envisions criminalizing particular points of view that she doesn’t like, including “antagonism based on ‘replacement theory.’” In October, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Sinister) said, “Now, more than ever, we’re short of workers. We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. The only way we’re going to have a good future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers, and all of them, ‘cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented that are here, and we will be pursuing that in the next Senate, in the Senate, the comprehensive immigration reform.” Was this tacit endorsement of “replacement theory” an example of “hate speech”? Would Schumer be prosecuted under Jackson Lee’s bill?
Even worse, Jackson Lee’s bill would criminalize “hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group, and such published material.” So “hate speech” that vilifies white people is apparently just fine. On top of that, the very concept of “hate speech” is subjective, and the term is far too often used to refer to speech that is perfectly true and accurate but disliked by the group making the charge. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution about “hate speech” not enjoying the protection of the First Amendment.
Jackson Lee’s bill would be the destruction of the United States as a free society. Of course, it has no chance of passing in this House, but the very fact that it was introduced, and that Democrat leaders didn’t denounce and censure Jackson Lee for introducing it, is ominous enough. In a sane political culture, Jackson Lee’s political career would be over for this bill alone. But there are sane political cultures, and then there is ours.