Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Discerning Hate Speech from Free Speech
When athletes kneel for our National Anthem, that is called “free speech.” When others criticize them, that is called “hate speech.” There was a good example of this recently at a Nebraska volleyball game (emphasis mine):
When the national anthem was sung before the match, a few Maryland players took a knee, which has occurred at other sporting events when student-athletes want to publicly protest something.
A few Nebraska spectators yelled at the Maryland players to “stand up.” Those shouts only lasted for a few moments but could be heard throughout the arena.
The Husker players were hurt by the Maryland players being yelled at, so much so that Nebraska coach John Cook said some of the Husker players were crying during a timeout early in the match.
During his news conference after the match, Cook said he was disappointed by what had happened Friday evening.
“I just don’t think that’s our fans’ place to say things during a match. It’s putting judgment on the other team, and this is a volleyball match. We’re not here to do that. So I’m a little disappointed that happened. And our players apologized to the Maryland players after the match. There are other ways to express people’s opinions, but not right after ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and introductions.”
So Coach Cook says there is no place for political statements during a volleyball game. Fair enough.
But he sees no problem, apparently, with players kneeling during the national anthem. There were apparently a few fans there who agreed with Mr. Cook that there is no place for political statements during a volleyball game, and they said so. Coach Cook was ‘disappointed’ that they agreed with him. Or something.
This doesn’t make any sense.
The author of the news story didn’t find this dichotomy to be odd. He didn’t ask Mr. Cook to explain why some political speech is apparently welcome at a volleyball game but other political speech is not. How does Mr. Cook determine which speech is acceptable? Why should we care what political speech is acceptable to a volleyball coach, anyway? The article doesn’t say.
In fact, the author is intentionally vague throughout – note the first sentence above: “When the national anthem was sung before the match, a few Maryland players took a knee, which has occurred at other sporting events when student-athletes want to publicly protest something.” Protest something? Protest what, exactly? Isn’t that central to the news story he’s writing here? Does he even know what they’re protesting? If not, why doesn’t he ask them?
And are we to accept that because this type of protest “has occurred at other sporting events” that it is beyond debate? Or perhaps just part of the game, like the anthem itself?
What is he saying here? Or, more precisely, what is he not saying?
Don’t worry your pretty little head about all that. Ignore the niggling details, and just gradually absorb his message: Protesting the American anthem is free speech. And criticism of that speech is called hate speech.
Obviously. After all, this is the thousandth article in the thousandth newspaper that has pointed that out, subtly or not-so-subtly.
This is what we’re up against. Republicans can’t buy this type of publicity. The Democrats get it for free. And it’s absolutely everywhere. This was not a political op-ed in The New York Times. This was a story in the sports section of The Freemont Tribune. You can’t even escape this stuff in a midwestern small-town sports section. In a story about a volleyball game, for Pete’s sake…
And there were thousands of other little examples in little stories in various sections of other little newspapers all over America on this day, and on every other day. It’s so ubiquitous that you don’t even notice it after a while. It’s like the air we breathe.
And eventually, even such ridiculous things as this, which make no sense at all – they eventually become second nature to us.
It’s amazing that Republicans ever win an election anywhere.
Not all Democrat efforts to control elections occur at the ballot box.
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.There are 75 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Perhaps:
Why is the left’s violence considered speech, while the right’s speech is considered violence?
Part of the problem is the right has been defending a 1960s interpretation of the 1st amendment. It is a left wing view of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment was about political speech and small individuals printing tracts and disseminating information. It was not about pornography, sex clubs, or lying multinational media conglomerates that function as propaganda wings of the left. The right can wake up and wage war on all this or continue to cry like helpless losers that their speech is under assault. The 1st amendment is so wide it protects people doing disgusting acts on camera but it just doesn’t protect firework displays, Christmas trees in public parks, or secret santa gifts at public school for the kids. The whole argument over free speech is moronic because the 1960s interpretation of speech is moronic. But Conservatives always end up defending the gains of the left and that is why we are where we are.
All those who kneel have a deep seated inferiority complex and no concept of personal dignity.
Or maybe they chose to recognize a greater power than themselves. But, yes, I’ve always seen it as a clear form of humbling oneself to someone or something greater.
The problem seems to be the ones kneeling at sporting events are apparently humbling themselves to BLM or some such.
Yes, and it’s just always seemed odd that BIPOC express their defiance by an act of obeisance.
Nit-pick: No circle metaphor needed. Fascism is actually derived from communism. Early 20th Century socialists, disillusioned by the failures of conventional international socialism, concocted fascism. See the evolution of the thinking of Benito Mussolini as a prime example.
For this I have been and am a socialist. The accusation of inconsistency has no foundation. My conduct has always been straight in the sense of looking at the substance of things and not to the form. I adapted socialisticamente to reality. As the evolution of society belied many of the prophecies of Marx, the true socialism folded from possible to probable. The only feasible socialism socialisticamente is corporatism, confluence, balance and justice interests compared to the collective interest.
— Benito Mussolini, in one of his last interviews, 29 days before he died.
If I were black and had any sense of personal dignity, I would cringe every time I hard the words “black lives matter.” As if there could be some doubt that your life mattered. The only ones who doubt this are those, whether black or white, who mouth this slogan.
So did this guy live in a particularly ethnically diverse neighborhood? Does he have close non-white friends? If the guy is white, why do I imagine him having a circle of friends whiter than the snow in Scandinavia.
I can sea why you’d say that . . .
Agreed. Fascism is not of the right. Small government, low taxes, individual rights and free markets are anathema to fascism.
Fascism is one of the “heresies” of Socialism. The Communists decided it was insufficiently left, an impure leftism, so they called it right.
Flint, Michigan.
Not to mention the abortion rate among blacks.