Trump’s bold defiance of Macron’s hate speech charter, by Daniel Jupp.
The lesson here is that moral strength is not always shown by action, but sometimes by the refusal to take actions which facilitate oppression. …
It would, for instance, have been very easy for Trump to sign up to President Macron’s proposals for a charter on ‘hate speech’ at the latest G7 summit. It is absolutely certain that almost all recent US presidents would have done so, regardless of the potential complications arising from such a policy given the First Amendment rights of US citizens.
In terms of media response, legal challenge and international reaction Trump’s life would have been made significantly easier by following the example of every other G7 leader and blindly signing his name in agreement with Macron’s virtue signaling and totalitarian move to police global free speech. Signing his name might even have resulted in rare praise from those who have long treated Trump himself and all his followers as blasphemous witches who must be daily immolated with fiery criticism. At least a temporary pause in the media war against him might have been the reward offered in return for meek compliance.
But Trump, characteristically, refused such inducements. Once again he chose the road of greater difficulty, through a terrain of predictable abuse. Once again he preserved his name and soul by not conceding to the misguided consensus of those currently in charge of every other major Western power.
Let us be clear exactly what Macron’s proposal for a charter on hate speech entails. It ensures the formal, legal adoption of a hypocritical vice that has overwhelmed several different nations already. Major tech companies are of course already enforcing the same censorious and controlling responses that Macron wishes to see given the authoritative endorsement of the G7. Under the ludicrous notion of hate speech sensible and established moral codes on free speech (like allowing anything that is not a direct incitement to violence) are abandoned in favor of the idea that a small number of powerful liberals should subjectively and selectively decide what does and does not constitute hateful commentary. What this results in, as we have already seen and indeed as many of us have experienced, is that all forms of conservative, traditional, patriotic, or libertarian thinking, publicly expressed, can be classified alongside genuine extremism. Perfectly legitimate opinions that defy the liberal consensus are subject to arbitrary silencing, to the removal of services of communication, to demonetizing strategies of thought control and to potential terms of imprisonment. The interpretation of emotion like hate is always subjective, and simply results in allowing one side of politics to be hateful with impunity, whilst the other side must wrap their language in so many layers of softening vagueness and apologia that any meaningful point is lost. Conservatives, republicans and libertarians must sound like liberals in order to be allowed to speak at all.