Most hate crimes are never resolved in the media. They are reported with formula hyperbole until the political feeding frenzy begins. If the loop later closes, the case concludes, these defenders of truth are not there to say that many if not most of them are hoaxes.
Related: New Hampshire Legislature Considers Bill to Compel Online Speech
It may be that they lack the resources to expend or that they are disinterested in the outcome. They may suspect or know the truth and refuse to investigate in the direction of it, even if it defuses the bomb they lit in their original reporting. That seems far more destructive to me than leaving a three-year-old piece about alleged criminality uncorrected.
I am, of course, referring to HB1157. A bill that would require online media to write corrections to stories regarding named persons charged with a crime of which they are later not found guilty. I’m not a fan, and you can read about that here, but it got me wondering. If this was a power we wanted in the state’s quiver (we don’t), how else might we apply it for the “good” of the collective?
There’s a false narrative out there that we are suddenly a country divided. We’ve entered an era of coarse discourse and partisan politics because of Donald Trump.
First, we’ve always been divided politically. Anyone who has ever spent a few minutes engaging leftists online knows there was never any civility in their politics. The publicizing of this division is merely a narrative to justify their visible expression of hatred for you and this President. That you are the hater.
Related: New Hampshire Democrats Want State Supervision of Public Opinion
To make this case they need examples of hate, so they create them. Victim classes faking oppression because of the narrative. But most hate crime hoaxes do not get exposed in the traditional media. They got their pound of flesh when the story broke.
Fake hate crimes that have caused riots, ruined universities, small businesses, and destroyed reputations.
No, I’m not suggesting we pass a law that requires the media to follow through on that reporting, whether it is proven fake or not. I’m making a point.
The left lies to reinforce big-picture narratives that are not true or more indicative of the far-left minority than the American majority. The media aids and abets this deception to advance partisan political goals. A crime of ethics and character, if nothing else, but not a thing the government should be regulating outside existing laws for libel and slander.
When there is intent, we have laws for that. Until we reach that threshold, like it or not, the First Amendment protects the right to be wrong and to choose what and how to report it now or later. It is up to the people to decide for themselves what this means and how to proceed by their clicks, views, and engagement.
Not the state.
