The Problem With A Regime That Criminalizes "Hate Speech"

October 05, 2025 Francis Mentor @ Manhattan Contrarian

“Hate speech.” The term calls to mind every sort of vile and disgusting insult and racial and ethnic slur. Who could possibly be in favor of allowing that? Large numbers of people instinctively assume that hateful statements, particularly those based on racial, religious or ethnic categories, must surely be illegal.

But here in the U.S., such statements in general are not illegal, and not subject to criminal prosecution. A couple of weeks ago, our Attorney General Pam Bondi was recorded on a podcast saying that “We will absolutely . . . go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech . . . . You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live.” I, among many others, pointed out that Ms. Bondi had badly mis-stated U.S. law on the subject. Our Supreme Court has drawn a line under the First Amendment that makes almost all “hate speech” constitutionally protected, short of incitement to imminent violence.

If you think that that line might not make sense, consider the alternative. Over in the UK, they have seen fit to criminalize “hate speech.” The main statute is the Public Order Act of 1986, with subsequent amendments. Relevant statutory text includes this:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if . . . he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred. . . .

Amendments from 2006 and 2008 extended the statute also to criminalize speech involving “stirring up hatred” regarding religion and sexual orientation.

With these statutes on the books, the UK is now reaping the consequences.

There is a fundamental difference between our “free speech” regime, and the British “hate speech” regime. Our right of free speech is a right of individuals against the government. It restricts the government as to what speech it can prosecute criminally. The “hate speech” regime now in force in the UK does the opposite: it empowers police and prosecutors to pick and choose whom they want to arrest and prosecute. Unfortunately no prosecution regime is ever completely objective or politically neutral, and thus inevitably “hate speech” ends up defined as most of the speech of our political adversaries, but never the speech of our allies. In today’s UK, that proposition is getting taken to absurd extremes.

Here a piece from Human Events on August 20. It describes an incident that arose when the site of a proposed new mosque in northern England attracted a group of demonstrators:

A 23-year-old man was arrested during a protest at the site of a proposed mosque on the edge of the Lake District after allegedly shouting “We love bacon” in a singsong voice, per the Telegraph. Police officers escorted the single father away from the demonstration, and he could face court action on charges of public disorder or racially aggravated conduct. . . .

The Muslim religion bans eating pork, and apparently the allegation is that saying “we love bacon” therefore “stirs up hatred” against Muslims.

A piece in the New York Post on August 19 describes the case of Lucy Connolly of Spofford. In July 2024 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children’s dance party in Southport, killing three children and injuring ten others. Within hours of the attack, Ms. Connolly published a tweet that stated “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” (It’s not clear from the source, LBC, whether the asterisks were in the original or were inserted by LBC.). It turned out that Mr. Rudakubana was born in Wales and was a UK citizen, although his parents are immigrants from Rwanda. Connolly quickly realized her mistake and deleted the tweet within three hours after posting; but police still showed up a week later to arrest her. Ms. Connolly then pled guilty and was sentenced to 31 months in prison for “publishing written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred,” an offense under [the Public Order Act] from 1986. In August 2025, Ms. Connolly was released after serving about 10 months of her sentence.

Or consider the case of Irish comedian Graham Linehan. In April 2025, while living in Arizona, Mr. Linehan published a tweet stating “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls." On September 1, Linehan traveled to the UK, and was greeted at Heathrow airport by some 5 policemen to arrest him. Linehan was promptly put on trial in Westminster Magistrate’s Court. I can’t find any word at this writing of whether he has yet been convicted or sentenced.

On the other side of the ledger, consider some of the things that are said regularly at mosques in the UK. In November 2023, in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 massacre, a British site called Talk TV put together a compilation of video clips of Muslim clerics speaking at various UK mosques. That compilation was then re-tweeted by British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson on October 2, 2025. The compilation includes only videos, but I have transcribed some excerpts:

• From a preacher said to be speaking at the Redbridge Islamic Center, Ilford: “Oh Allah, curse the Jews and the children of Israel. Oh Allah, curse the infidels . . . . Oh Allah, break their works, shake their feet, disburse and tear apart their unity, and ruin their houses and destroy their homes.”
• From a preacher said to be speaking in Birmingham: “Behind me the stones will speak and say, oh Muslim behind me there is a Yahudi, come and kill him.”
• No location or mosque is given for this one: “Oh God, hear our hearts regarding the usurping Jews and of every enemy of you and the Muslims. Oh God, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and don’t leave any of them alive. Oh God, our Lord, shake the ground beneath their feet and freeze the blood in their veins, make them captive to the Muslims.”
• And another one without a specific location or mosque given: “Oh revenger, revenge from the oppressive aggressor occupying Zionists. Oh Allah, shake the earth beneath them. Oh Allah, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and do not leave any of them alive.”

The narrator of the Talk TV piece says that they have taken this information to the authorities, who say that they are investigating and will take appropriate action. However, here nearly two years later, there is no report of any prosecutions.

Robinson appends this comment to his retweet of Talk TV’s compilation: “Hate speech laws are only used against natives to silence them whilst our country is flooded & raped.” Sadly, he is right. The speech of the political enemies of the regime, even if seemingly innocuous, will be twisted to find “hateful” implicit connotations. Meanwhile, the speech of allies of the regime, no matter how hateful that speech may be or how explicitly calling for violence or even mass murder, will never be prosecuted.

Thank God for our First Amendment, and for a Supreme Court willing to uphold it.

Ireland is on the verge of enacting the most draconian anti-speech law in the West

May 2, 2023 By Andrea Widburg

Ireland, a country that long chafed under England’s repressive governance, is about to become very repressive itself. It’s about to put into effect a speech bill so repressive that anyone who even receives a text that runs afoul of the law could be arrested if he does not immediately delete and disavow the text. This is where the Western world, once the bastion of intellectual liberty, has ended.

The law, entitled “Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022,” passed through the legislature in February, with only 4 representatives out of 160 voting against it. Most in the public weren’t even aware of the bill and, if they’d thought about it, they probably would have congratulated themselves on being a nice country in which “hate” speech is barred.

It was only when an Irish conservative commentator, Keith Woods, who was reinstated on Twitter thanks to Elon Musk’s commitment to free speech, that word got out:...........To Read More.....

“She Was In Full Meltdown”: Hillary Unleashed On Donna Brazile For Unapproved Debate Question

By Freedom Outpost December 12, 2020

Editor's Note:  This appeared as a link in another article, but I decided to run this over two year old piece because I can't understand why anyone would work for this woman.  She's a lying, vile, hate filled, filthy mouthed psychopath, and just like Kamala blames everyone else for her failures and incompetence.   Why would people put up with this racist lunatic?  

It isn't like those involved with Democrat politics don't know just how deranged she is.  She doesn't have an ounce of leadership skills or qualities, and is blatantly incompetent and dumb. That says a great deal for the Democrat party, which is, Biden is the tip of the iceberg.    

One more thing.  This piece clearly demonstrates and confirms the corrupt media/Democrat party collusion.  RK

Hindsight is making more and more clear that Hillary’s outrageously rigged campaign is dependent – heavily dependent – on control over the media. Nearly every question she has been asked during the past 18 months has been approved and agreed upon ahead of time. Hillary’s responses have been heavily scripted and rehearsed. It even emerged that Donna Brazile, who is a CNN contributor and who was appointed interim chair of the DNC after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced out, shared questions that were meant to be spontaneous with the Clinton campaign in advance.

But in this alleged behind-the-scenes account, Donna Brazile becomes the brunt of Hillary Clinton’s anger after host Matt Lauer sprung an unapproved question about the email scandal on her. As analyst Bill Still points out in the video, Hillary’s famously furious temper was unleashed after she lost control of the narrative. She can hardly be trusted with the difficult and consequential decision made in the Oval Office:

Check out what Hillary was claimed to have shouted at her staff just after leaving the stage of the forum, as she used and abused her presstitute media relations and her lapdog advisors shaping her entire ascent to power. According to State of the Nation, who in turn received an anonymous email from who they believe to be an insider at NBC:...........To Read More...

 

Mob Rule and the Death of Trust

America’s elites use lies about race, gender, health, climate, environment, and energy to gut the middle class, explode the dependent class, and transfer trillions into their own pockets.

By Edward Ring November 15, 2022

It’s been clear to millions of Americans for decades that the media was biased, that the Democratic Party and their government employee union allies controlled and corrupted big city elections, and that the “climate crises” and the threat of “white supremacy” were being oversold. These and other annoyances were perennial. But for many skeptics, the level of mistrust remained tolerable. The system itself was resilient. Nothing is perfect. The tide can turn. The good guys could still win. The 2015 arrival of Donald Trump on the national political scene changed the rules. The system not only revealed itself to be even more fraudulent than most people had previously believed, but it became malevolent.

For over six years, representatives of every established institution in the country have stereotyped Americans who voted for President Trump as bigots, idiots, ignoramuses, haters, psychopaths, and traitors. The virulence of this condemnation has escalated each year, culminating during the 2022 mid-term election cycle with a full-court press to tag anyone who supports the former president as a fascist and and potential “domestic terrorist.”.........To Read More....

 

The Left’s War on Free Speech

Arthur Milikh April 06, 2021

The Left wants to ban “hate speech” using the powerful national institutions they now govern.  They do not hide this intention but say so openly. Powerful tools—like Big Tech, a nearly unified press, and the national security state—give speech restrictionists the impression that this goal can and should be pursued. But exactly what kind of speech do they want to ban, and exactly how would this ban transform America?

“Hate speech,” on the surface, seems to mean racial epithets, slurs, or Holocaust denial. But such speech has already disappeared from America’s public square. There is no “hate speech” in any recognizable form anywhere in America outside of the bowels of the Internet or in rap music. If anything, America’s public square is governed by exactly the opposite tendency: corporate, media, educational, and social powers fiercely punish such utterances. The N-word is the only word in the English language which is forbidden from being uttered. And yet, calls to ban “hate speech” only increase.

The American Left is not interested in or concerned about racial epithets. In reality, “hate speech” is the words, thoughts, and judgments of the oppressor group, which marginalized groups claim harms their self-respect. The oppressor group, in virtually every case, is whites—especially white males, though white women also are carriers of “whiteness,” the original sin...........To Read More....

 

Convicted for Conviction? Finnish Leader Faces Jail for Bible Quote

By Tony Perkins | May 4, 2021

Quoting the Bible can't land you in American prison (yet), but in Helsinki, it's a different story. In a case that's stunned the West, Finland's former Interior Minister and leader of the Christian Democrats, has been criminally charged for posting a picture of the Bible, opened to Romans 1:24-27. She was disturbed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church joining a gay pride event and decided to remind them what God says about homosexuality. Now, after a two-year investigation, the tweet could put her behind bars.

The saga, which has involved three police interrogations since 2019, rose to a fever pitch last month when the former MP was officially charged with "hate speech." Finland's prosecutor, according to reports, called the actions derogatory and discriminatory. Päivi Räsänen, the former Interior Minister, fired back, insisting, "I do not see I would have in any way defamed homosexuals whose human dignity and human rights I have constantly said to respect and defend." As a former government minister, she says she's "shocked" the situation has elevated the way it has.

"I will go to the court with a peaceful and brave mind, trusting that Finland is a constitutional state where the freedoms of speech and religion, both of which are guaranteed in international agreements and in our constitution, are respected," Räsänen has said. "A conviction based on the Christian faith is more than a surficial opinion. The early Christians did not renounce their faith in lions' caves; why should I then renounce my faith in a court room?" As for anything she's said about the Bible's teachings, she insists, "I will not step back from my conviction nor from my writings. I do not apologize for the writings of the Apostle Paul either. I am ready to defend freedom [of] speech and religion as far as is necessary."............To Read More.....

 

Will France Finally Rain Justice Down on Islamic Terrorists?

September 7, 2020 By Michael Curtis

A court case in Paris began on September 2, 2020 to render justice concerning a series of terrorist attacks in recent French history. The case is occurring after five years of investigation and delay, partly due to COVID-19, which caused the closing of most French courthouses, with the trial of 14 suspects, three in absentia, accused of being connected with those responsible for the terror attacks on the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris and following events — the attack on a kosher supermarket, Hypercacher, in east Paris and other sites for three days beginning on January 7, 2015.

The suspects are charged with being involved in the logistics and preparation of the events, helping finance and providing operational materials and weapons in support of the jihadists. Because of its unusual nature, and the judicial and political importance of the trial, which is expected to last two months, the high-security proceedings are to be filmed.

This case is important not only in itself, but also because of its relevance in the ongoing highly controversial debate on the limits to freedom of speech and the importance of intellectual and cultural freedom........To Read More.....

Liberals Versus Political Speech

The Left wants to put people behind bars for expressing opinions that it doesn’t like. 

John O. McGinnis

Once upon a time, liberals pushed free speech at every opportunity. They lauded Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis for protecting unpopular views via the First Amendment early in the last century, for instance. During the 1960s, Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement demanded the right to demonstrate politically on campus—and liberals championed the cause. Similar progressive cheers rang out when the Supreme Court extended the First Amendment to protect inarticulate expression, like nude dancing and flag burning.

But now liberals want to empower the government to put people behind bars for advancing political ideas, come election time. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has declared one litmus test for a Supreme Court justice: a commitment to overrule Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court opinion upholding Americans’ First Amendment right to use a corporate form to criticize or praise politicians running for office. (The politician criticized in that case was none other than Hillary Clinton.) Worse still, Democratic senators have introduced a constitutional amendment that goes beyond reversing Citizens United and gives Congress substantial discretion to regulate how electoral debates are conducted.

This dramatic shift suggests that liberals have lost faith in their arguments—above all, at the ballot box. If you hold sway over the media and the academy and yet still fail to convince a majority of voters with your views, suppressing speech that counters those views can start to seem like a constitutional imperative.........To Read More.....