I know I can over-analyze and assume that someone is behind the bigger picture, like a mafia boss looking for more work to keep the “family” in the money.
I really think the latest drive by MSM/Government towards divisiveness is to not only take the focus on the corrupt government (politicians, MSM, Deep-State, elite, etc) but to also is a great marketing campaign to generate more business and more revenue.
It has worked with the CIA for decades, its black-budget ops funded by being the middleman to the black market drug trade (thanks to the government “war on drugs” AND the US’s continued presence in Afghanistan, home to 90% of the world’s opium) that they have in place where the price of drugs remains high (no pun intended), for now, until marijuana is legalized in the USA. What was a vice before the 1930s, then became a crime especially in the 80s/90s (with its parallel spike in violence that ALL prohibition generates), is bound to become a vice again in the 2020s.
This same forecast of legalized pot is seen by local, state and federal police leaders and politicians as a threat to their status quo and the prison-industrial complex. The only way forward is into the arena of pre-crime, since fighting vice (which all victimless crimes are) will no longer generate revenue like the drug war did.
Enter the new hate crime definitions stacking up and the interest of the police state to “research” this area and venture into keeping society “safe”. The latest is from Michigan where Remus at the Woodpile Report shares:
What is hate speech? Legally. According to the Supreme Court. Joe Briggs cites the controlling case, Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which states hate speech must meet three conditions: Intent, imminence and likelihood.
You have to intentionally be inciting people to commit crimes of violence. Those crimes have to be specific and imminent. “Let’s go down the street and hang this guy” would be specific and imminent. “I’d like to string that guy up” would not be. And there has to be a strong likelihood that once the threat is made, the crimes will actually be committed. If any of these three things is lacking, the speech is protected. It can be hateful as all get-out, but it’s still protected.
That was then .. this is now:
Michigan’s attorney general and Department of Civil Rights on Friday laid out plans to increase the documentation and prosecution of hate crimes and incidents while citing a reported uptick in extremist and hate groups in the state.
Uptick in “extremist” groups no doubt because there are new definitions (like veterans, etc) and the surge in MSM reporting on a fake story for two years that drove many people crazy with “Russia-fever”, but I digress.
[Attorney General Dana] Nessel’s new unit will fight against hate crimes and review any groups identified in the SPLC list, her spokeswoman Kelly Rossman-McKinney said.
OK, wait a minute. The SPLC is in a world of hurt lately as it was finally revealed as to how corrupt an organization like this can get. That corrupt organization will be the reference point? What can go wrong? (Sarcasm alert)
Arbulu’s plans for a database would document hate and bias incidents that don’t rise to the level of a crime. The database would then be used to identify areas where awareness and education programs are most needed, he said.
So prosecuting actual crime is no longer the first order of business in Michigan because they have run out of the revenue that actual crime generates. So what would be the proper recourse for the state to let someone know that what they said to someone was hate, but not a crime? A 1AM SWAT team intervention?
Riding the wave of the latest snowflake triggering hate “speech” means an opportunity for the parasite .. errr I mean state to offer its “services” .. at a special rate I am sure ($$$).
I wish I could say that voting better might change this, but I would be lying. The swamp extends well beyond Washington DC, so it is time that people start waking up to that fact.
Short of this, how about everyone just mind their own business, and when someone offends you, just keep the police state out of the resolution equation.
‘Nuf said.
-SF1