The Real Reason for the Left’s Double Standard on Hate Speech

Counter-protesters prepare to clash with Patriot Prayer protesters during a rally in Portland, Ore., Saturday, Aug. 4, 2018.

By Michael Brown Published on August 9, 2018

Why is it that organizations like the SPLC can designate conservative Christians as hate groups while ignoring radical leftists like Antifa? Why is that Facebook and Google and YouTube and Twitter appear to punish conservatives disproportionately for alleged violations of community guidelines?

The answer is as disturbing as it is simple. The left believes it is so morally and intellectually superior to the right that it can see nothing wrong with its extreme positions and hostile words. Is it wrong to be intolerant of bigots? Is it wrong to hate (or even punch) a Nazi?

In short, if I’m a member of the KKK, is it wrong for you to disparage and mock me? If I’m a dangerous homophobe, is it wrong for you to vilify and exclude me? If I’m a hate-filled propogandist spreading dangerous lies, is it wrong for you to mark me and marginalize me?

Of course, there are double standards on all sides of the debate. On the right as well as on the left. There is more than enough hypocrisy to go around, from the most progressive to the most conservative.

Blind Spots and Double Standards

All of us have our share of blind spots, so we tend to condemn in others what we justify in ourselves. Welcome to human nature.

Still, it is conspicuous that the same behavior gets treated differently by the leftist elite (including many a university professor) and by watchdog groups like the SPLC and by the internet giants.

Back in 2004-05, when I first began to address gay activism, I was widely mocked for saying, “Those who came out of the closet want to put us in the closet.” The response was consistent: “No one wants to put you in the closet!”

A few years back, I noticed a change in tone: “Bigots like you belong in the closet!” But of course!

What I’m talking about here has to do with fundamental attitudes, with the basis of our judgments, with the inability to see wrong on one’s own side.

While being interviewed on a Christian TV program back in 2011, I quoted the comment of a Christian attorney. He told me that those who were once put in jail (speaking of pioneer gay activists) will want to put us in jail. For having the audacity to say this on Christian TV, I was vilified and maligned.

Yet when Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing a court order to grant same-sex marriage licenses, there was widespread rejoicing on the left: “Kim Davis is ISIS! Lock her up!”

Again, I’m aware of double standards on all sides. It’s a point of personal reflection and self-examination in my own life.

For example, I believed that, in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome should have been disciplined for issuing same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the law. Yet I believe that Kim Davis was within her rights in refusing to issue such licenses and her home state of Kentucky failed to protect her, under the law.

These are debates we can (and should) have.

A Dangerous Hypocrisy

What I’m talking about here has to do with fundamental attitudes, with the basis of our judgments, with the inability to see wrong on one’s own side. I’m talking about a dangerous hypocrisy. (For the record, I never compared Gavin Newsome to Muslim terrorists.)

In my May 2016 article called “Is Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg a Well-Intended Liberal with a Massive Blind Spot?,” I referenced the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann, the notorious Nazi mass murderer, who was apprehended by two Israeli agents while living quietly with his family in Argentina.

They had to wait for several weeks before smuggling him out of the country. During that time, they spent many hours in private conversation with him, somehow managing to restrain themselves from taking the law into their own hands.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

In one of the conversations, one of the agents realized that Eichmann had given the order to exterminate the village in which his wife’s family lived, killing every single one of them.

When asked how he could do such a thing, Eichmann seemed perturbed, responding, “But they were Jews.”

Of course he gave the order to kill them. What else was he to do?

Again, to be clear, I am not comparing the SPLC or Facebook or Google to Eichmann and the Nazis. That would be as bad as leftists comparing conservatives to Nazis. Not a chance.

I’m simply pointing out that in Eichmann’s twisted world, he was only following orders and doing what was “right.”

Let the Hypocrisy be Exposed

So also, in Antifa’s twisted world (although, again, I emphasize, not as twisted as that of the Nazis), they are doing what is “right” in violently opposing the tyrannical right. Somebody’s got to do it!

Thankfully, there is an ongoing, healthy push-back against this liberal hypocrisy. In fact, just this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the SPLC for using hate group labels to “bully” conservatives. Let their hypocrisy be exposed.

But remember: You have been prejudged as guilty, so your mistreatment is well-deserved.

It is this highly bigoted attitude we must overcome with truth, reason, determination and love.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • tz1

    The error on both sides is not separating crimes (which the State needs to bother about) and sins (which the church needs to address).

    Homosexuality should not be illegal, but it shouldn’t be subsidized (health care, even before the indoctrination).

    God valued free will above all so he could have true love. Christians seeked to make laws against Homosexuality (or miscegany or anti-miscegany). Jefferson was the wisest about stating if it didn’t break my bones or pick my pocket why should it be a federal case?

    The whole blessing of the greatest divine providence of the Constitution (original intent) is that it limited Government and let us work out our salvation in fear and trembling – or damnation in foolish pleasure and ignorance.

    That is the way God wanted it. To FREELY CHOOSE HIM. Not to pantomime at the point of a gun.

    • Andrew Mason

      Practicing paedophilia is illegal. Why should practicing homosexuality not be treated similarly?

      • tz1

        Because Paedophelia is NEVER consensual.
        Homosexual between two adults can be – and if they don’t create a public nusiance or other problems creating a gay hunter task force creates more evils than it would solve. Government is force, violence, and dangerous at best.
        Also when you clutter the civil rulebook with laws that can’t or won’t be enforced, you sicken and weaken the law – so that homosexual acts in private is among violence or fraud to the public.

        What is worse is if you go back, the Comstock Laws banned pornography, contraception, and things causing abortion in actual Interstate Commerce (1. Not the butterfly effect, because I breathe and release CO2, or grind my own grain in my own mill in my own home I’m affecting interstate commerce; 2. pornography is an incitement, not speech or expression).

        Why is banning contraceptives not only not contraversial but even more horribly opposed by most Christians?

        Then there’s Usury. See Student Loans. Usury was banned but it is another grave sin that the “conservative free marketers” managed to quiet. Usury (see “Zippy Catholic” who has a long guide to what is and what is not Usury, and goes into mutuum loans v.s. others for details) OUGHT to be criminal.

        I can make the case on contraception either way (always a sin but may or may not be criminal), but USURY ought to be criminal and considered a serious sin.

        • Andrew Mason

          You appear to assume consent is the critical element. You also assume consent can never be given. What of Aisha for instance to use one of the better known examples?

          Nobody is talking about creating a task force to hunt homosexual offenders, simply asking why particular activity should be legal.

          Crimes may not be regularly investigated, but that’s not to say they can’t be enforced.

          Not sure your point about Cornstock Laws. Also not aware of most Christians expressing a view on contraceptives being legalillegal.

          Similarly, I was under the impression that usury was illegal. Aren’t loan sharks criminals?

          • tz1

            CoMstock laws from the 1870s, try searching. Contraception was considered sinful by 100% Christians until 1930 until the Anglicans council of Lambeth where they said “only for very serious reasons” like a woman who would die if she got pregnant. In the 1960’s Christians did a 180. See the Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan.

            In Aquinas Summa there is a treatise on law where he states prostitution should not be a crime, and I would add homosexuality to that. The law to have any legitimacy must be evenly enforced both horizontally and vertcally – laws on theft and on violence both have to be enforced, and both rich and poor subject to them. It can’t be a cafeteria where the executive can pick and choose what to enforce and upon whom.

            Sinfulness and Legality are utterly different categories, though most things which are illegal are also sinful. Homosexuality doesn’t belong to and shouldn’t exist in the legality category at all. It would be like asking what flavor, and you answer “purple” – but purple is a color and not a flavor. Sex itself isn’t something for the law, only theft and violence if it is associated with it, and rape is a violent act which can have its own category because of virginity.

            Sin is sin, there are grave sins and venial sins, but that it the Church’s business and they have their methods of discipline up to and including excommunication.

      • Ray

        Yes, Practicing homosexuality should be illegal too, and laws against it should be enforced.

        • Deplorable Rican ☨ʳᵉᵈᵉᵉᵐᵉᵈ

          I partial disagree. PUBLIC homosexuality should be illegal. I din’t think the state has the right to enforce what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.

  • tz1

    To revise and extend.

    Christians have to be MILITANT about freedom of thought and liberty. NO closets unless voluntary. The public square is a battleground of reasoned discussion based on reason and evidence, and even rhetoric. But not coercion.

    Evangelism to Christ’s Gospel (unlike Muslim conversion to Allah and the Koran) CANNOT be done at gunpoint. Which is why Christians must be (small-l) libertarian. Use ideas. Reason and evidence to shatter objections. Expose the conraditions and the lies. What is left is the way, the truth and the life.

    Jesus must be seen and accepted for who he is – and it is better if it is difficult or embarassing rather than the pretense of cultural christianity where someone still has a damned infinitely valuable eternal soul that just cooperated because it is profitable or fashionable. We need conversions to Christ, not to churchianity.

    • Anne Jones

      “Evangelism to Christ’s Gospel (unlike Muslim conversion to Allah and the Koran) CANNOT be done at gunpoint”. If that is the case, why has the church throughout history done exactly that, labeling non-believers heretics and burning them at the stake or even worse? Maybe you should read some history books.

      • tz1

        Maybe you should read some actual history.
        Usually it was the CIVIL, i.e. GOVERNMENT authorities that did so – the Spanish Inquisition was entirely a civic affair.

        But I find it ironic it is the modern Atheists and Secularists DEFENDING MUSLIMS that did worse and CALLING for deplatforming, losing income, job, or even doing violence to Trump supporters (Punch a Trump supporter, since they are all Nazis).

        It took Christians a hundred generations to establish freedom of speech, expression, and religion. It took non-Christians one to destroy it and recreate Mao/Soviet/Nazi/PohlPot style censorship.

  • Dave M.

    Dr. Brown, The marxist Antifa’s world view is just as twisted as the NAZI’s, it just does not have the power to implement it yet.

  • Ray

    Look into the information Liz Crokin has on the corruption that is in our government. The sexual immorality in this nation is immense, and many people make their money through all of this very evil, very dark business. Is it possible that more than 1/2 of the people in our government could be arrested? Yes, they see the Church as their enemy.

    • Anne Jones

      Evidece for your claim that 50% of givernment employees should be arrested?

  • Patmos

    The majority of the left’s stances you can break down pretty easily. Weird thing is, even when you do with evidence to back it, they usuaully just scream their position louder (yes, they were screaming to begin with) and then resort to insults because they have nothing else to say. So I would argue that it’s not so much that they think they are intellectually superior, it’s that they have that dreadful combination of ignorance and arrogance.

    Yes, there are exceptions, but for the most part that’s the rule.

  • Anne Jones

    “The left” is a very broad spectrum. All Dr Brown does is take the most extreme end of the spectrum and present it as the whole spectrum. Typical ‘straw-man argument’ devoid of all logic.

    • Billy Bee

      This is why we use the term libtard. Your rebuttal makes no sense and has no brains behind it. Using the word straw man argument is another lame attempt.

      • Anne Jones

        I’m guessing you don’t even know what a “straw man” argument is, right?

        • Billy Bee

          how about clarifying your comment to be something constructive and not dish out the typical useless bullcrap?

Inspiration
A Case for Fear
Austin Roscoe
More from The Stream
Connect with Us