I’ve made these arguments before, but I do so again, and here in more detail, for the benefit of new readers.
Proponents of hate speech laws often like to make the analogy of comparing so-called “hate speech” to “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.” Putting aside the obvious riposte as to who it is who is going to determine what “hate speech” is or is not, how these determinations will not be biased, and how these determinations would not simply be used to silence dissidents by labelling any unwelcome expressions as “hate,” let us look at this more fundamentally, and make the assumption that by “hate speech” the censors refer to pro-White, racial nationalist, ethnic nationalist, race realist, immigration restriction, EGI, racial preservationist, etc. memes and expressions.
First, the analogy is false because yelling “fire” (when there isn’t one, we presume) in a crowded movie theater is an act of memetic vandalism without any legitimate social or political content. What could be such legitimate content? That someone opposes the idea of movies? That they oppose the particular movie being shown? There are other ways of expressing such views without committing a malicious act specifically designed to cause harm without any underlying intent of sociopolitical messaging. On the other hand, dissident expressions about the System’s anti-White racial policies has great social and political content. In fact, the entirety of such expression is social and political content. Protesting alien immigration, determining the future demographic nature of nations – this is the very essence, the fundamental core, of social and political content; as evolved beings, as humans, what could be more important than who does, and does not, populate our nations?
It is therefore unreasonable to equate reasoned discussion of controversial issues on race and immigration (or anything else of significant social and political content) with content-free verbal vandalism such as “yelling fire.” Note that there is also a difference between incitement to violence and reasonable dissident speech. The former is already illegal, as it is solicitation to commit battery, homicide, etc.; while the latter is clearly of a different nature. Remember that all the SJW HR directors like to tell us that “offensive behaviors in the workplace” are those that “any reasonable person” would find offensive. The same applies here. Reasonable people would (or should) agree that pointing at “X” and yelling “Kill him! Kill X!” is incitement to violence; while asserting that the presence of X in our society is harmful, and pointing out why this is so, is not. One riposte to that could of course be: who defines a “reasonable person?” Very well, if you want to go down that “rabbit hole,” then please start with your local SJW HR director. Ask them. Further, if we live in a “democracy,” assuming that all adult citizens are reasonable enough to vote, then we hope that they are reasonable and can understand the argument distinguishing political commentary from incitement to violence. Another sophistic riposte is to assert that the mere act of explaining why “X” is harmful would lead to violence against “X” and thus is “incitement.” Let’s consider the implications of that reasoning. Thus, SJWs who criticize “racists” are guilty of incitement to violence (actually, in this case they DO in fact openly incite violence, but let’s make believe they merely criticize). Those who warn against “global warming” are inciting violence against gas station owners and coal miners. Those who rail against the obesity epidemic are inciting violence against the overweight and against workers at fast food restaurants. Those who complain about the opioid epidemic are inciting violence against doctors and pharmaceutical companies. No. Mere criticism about harm cannot be construed as incitement of violence against those who may be directly or indirectly responsible for that harm. We have a right to identify harm done to us and to identify who is doing it. We have the right to identify threats so we can defend ourselves; which can be done in a variety of ways, including non-violent ways, and thus it is not “incitement to violence.”
Second, let’s flip the analogy. Let’s assume that there really IS a fire in the movie theater. You notice it starting, but you just quietly leave without telling anyone and everyone else in the movie theater dies. Not yelling fire when there really is one is just as bad – actually worse – than yelling fire when such does not exist. If the problems of race and immigration pose real dangers then we have an obligation to speak out about these issues. Yes, speak out responsibly, but speak out. To restrain such speech is to prevent people from being warned about threats to themselves, their people, and their nation. That is immoral, and violates the most basic human right of self-defense (including group self-defense) and self-protection.