☆ Memo to SJ City Council: Stop playing favorites when invoking "hate speech"
To safely record his thoughts on paper, 1984's Winston Smith must sit out of sight of his bedroom's surveillance telescreen—and, you know, hope the gov't Thought Police aren't already monitoring him.
Many of Bay Area's colleges and *cough* gov'ts silence viewpoints they dislike using the “hate speech” moniker—while, at the same time, conveniently ignoring their own supporters' offensive speech. In this Opp Now exclusive op-ed, Housing Commissioner Roberta Moore argues (citing recent local events) that “hate speech” bans are frequently and unjustly weaponized by Council, and alternative viewpoints should instead be welcomed—and protected—under the First Amendment.
Dear SJ City Council:
What is hate speech? Should it be allowed or not?
On the surface, we would all say a resounding “no”—hate speech is reprehensible.
On the other hand, we know from history that the more powerful conquerors are the ones who claim victory and name the villains. Remember, history books named Christopher Columbus the hero and the Native Americans the villains!
“Hate speech” can be as open to interpretation by the audience as naming the victors and the villains of a war. If it's policed by the government, the concept of speech that “offends” can be arbitrarily invoked to penalize one's political opponents, which threatens our democracy. This is the reason why controversial or offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about from my experience in San Jose. I bought a 4-plex for retirement and have been involved on City commissions since 2015. When nonprofits called us greedy landlords at council meetings about rent control, council and housing staff did nothing to curb that offensive speech. In fact, staff seemed to encourage it. Was this because Council was protecting their First Amendment rights?
I doubt it. Rather, it seemed that Council wanted to make an exception in this case because the nonprofits' “hate” speech furthered Council’s agenda to strip away our Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Calling someone a racist is the new way to silence your opposition. On the Council dais, Peter Ortiz claimed opposing COPA was an act of violence. [Editor's note: More on that here.] After this, the nonprofits—funded by the City—attacked employees at SCCAOR, sending someone to the hospital. What was Council’s response? Councilmembers Omar Torres and Peter Ortiz held a press conference calling SCCAOR racists.
When Council was the recipient of hate speech over Zoom, they eliminated the ability to give public comment remotely.
Our Founding Fathers knew the more powerful would dominate if free speech was hindered. It is scary that anyone—especially our leaders—would eliminate our First Amendment right, whether they agree with others' ideas or not!
Speech that some may find offensive is allowed under the First Amendment. Here are the three rules of when it is allowed and where it crosses the line.
Be very wary of those claiming to protect us at the expense of our First Amendment rights.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.