Skip to content

Free Speech Platform Rumble Sues New York Over Blatantly Unconstitutional ‘Hate Speech’ Censorship Law

Free Speech Platform Rumble Sues New York Over Blatantly Unconstitutional 'Hate Speech' Censorship Law
7 min read

Free speech rebels are having a moment. They dare to tell the world that they will not capitulate to the leftist mob that seeks to suppress the voices of those they disagree with or views that make them uncomfortable.

The mainstream media has focused on the latest efforts of free speech herald Elon Musk, which left liberal journalists hyperventilating in their paper bags as they feverishly typed hit after hit about the eccentric billionaire.

However, like most attacks on our constitutional rights, the less covert efforts will prove successful in tearing down the freedoms we have learned to take for granted. A recent move by New York State has drawn the ire of another free speech protection giant.

Rumble has joined a lawsuit to challenge a New York law that was sold to protect people from hate speech by forcing social media sites and bloggers to do their censorship.

But this move by the Empire State is just a small symptom of a growing cancer in our country, the drive to reshape one of our most beloved God-given rights.

Puppeteers

I first came across this story while reading a opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by Eugene Volokh. Mr. Volokh is the author of the legal column Volokh Conspiracy, highlighting how the new online hate speech law seeks to use writers like himself to censor free speech.

He explains that the law requires social media networks and any site that allows comments to post a plan to respond to alleged “hate speech” by users. Bloggers and social media sites must publicly post policies to respond to comments that:

“defame, demean, or incite violence against any group based on race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

But what does it mean to defame or demean a group? Could it call large segments of the population fascists because of their political party? Could it be that large segments of the population are labeled racist solely on the basis of their skin color?

Doubtful. Laws like this are simply designed to suppress speech that one side disapproves of, which becomes a dangerous slippery slope.

But New York State doesn’t want to do the dirty work they believe in; they want creators and writers to do it for them, which is not only unconstitutional but also cowardly.

RELATED: YouTube Alternative and Free Speech Champion Rumble Denies France’s Request to Pick Up Russian News Sources

Are you ready for the real deal?

Mr. Volokh is part of a lawsuit with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) against the state of New York. Complementing this lawsuit is Canada-based free speech YouTube alternative, Rumble.

The lawsuit receivablesamong other things:

“There can be no reasonable doubt that New York will enforce the online hate speech law to compel online services to censor protected speech.”

What on earth could make Rumble and the FIRE team think this could happen? It’s not like a social media site was used as some kind of tool for the state to select content to allow on their site based on political bias…

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovksi is not happy with this New York law, to point the apparent effect this law will have:

“New York law would open the door to the suppression of protected speech based on the complaints of activists and bullies.”

Since the law also requires platforms to create a viewer complaint system that must be responded to directly, this structure is ripe for abuse by sensitive personalities who feel hurt when others criticize their views.

Refusal to comply with this law can lead to an investigation by the public prosecutor and hefty fines.

RELATED: Judge Jeanine and Geraldo Spar on what free speech is

But it is hate speech!

Nobody likes hate speech; in fact, we hate hate speech. It is, well, hateful, and when spoken aloud it is met with overwhelming condemnation. That’s a testament to how good free speech works in this country.

Laws like this one in New York, designed to curb “hate speech,” will only force it to retreat into obscurity, where it grows like mold in the dark corner of a public bathroom. It’s unfortunate that this concept now seems lost to Americans.

It’s an example of how well we’ve all had it in the last century that we’ve forgotten the point of freedom of speech.

Some scholars believe that we need to rethink what defines freedom of speech, that our definition is too broad and should be more restrictive to explain “hate speech.”

In 1919, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a poignant dissent in the case Abrams v. United States. As a reminder, this case concerned individuals distribute pamphlets express opposition to United States intervention in the Russian Civil War.

Justice Holmes wrote:

“The ultimate good desired is better achieved through free trade of ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of thought itself to be accepted in the marketplace competition.”

This is the famous argument for the ‘marketplace of ideas’. However, UCLA lawyer Richard Hasen argues this marketplace can no longer exist:

“The ‘marketplace of ideas’ approach doesn’t sit well with our current world, where we know the truth won’t surface. Otherwise, 65% of Republicans wouldn’t believe the last election was stolen.”

How well will that argument age in light of #Twitterfiles’ recent drop this weekend?

And what about lies? Hasen conveniently fails to mention that, almost for a man, all top Democrats are election deniers — from the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections.

RELATED: Senator Dick Durbin thinks free speech just means he agrees

A light in the darkness

Pay attention to how the left and mainstream media abuse our collective aversion to hate speech. Hate speech is the motive of mass shootings and other reprehensible violent crimes.

Yet another example of how we as a society are too quick to dismiss personal responsibility for our actions and instead blame it on intangibles like hate speech. In this lawsuit against New York, the claim is made that:

“New York cannot regulate adverse online speech by forcing online service to ‘mouth support for views they deem objectionable’ in hopes of discouraging or eliminating hate speech.”

Not only can they not do it because of the Constitution, but they literally can’t. You can’t ignore hate speech.

Hate speech will never exist because we are human beings and we have the unique ability to hate. Therefore, the only way to fight hate is not to avoid it, but to counter it with truth and well-thought-out and well-examined arguments.

Rumble rarely gets the attention it should, and when it does, it’s almost always labeled a “right-wing go-to video site” thanks to New York Times branding. The Rules of Rumble state the creators have “the freedom to hold and express unpopular beliefs”; this is not a controversial concept, at least it shouldn’t be.

Let’s hope the likes of Elon Musk on Twitter and Chris Pavlovsky of Rumble keep up the good fight and keep the light on free speech, because only the light can clear the darkness. Once we lose that light, we lose everything.

Now is the time to support and share the resources you trust.
The Political Insider is number 3 Feed spots “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

©2022. WeAreWeThePeople | Designed by Whreedesign.com

--