Two reports this week showed that hate continues to increase in America.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported its highest ever number of civil rights complaints in 2021, including 104 complaints of incidents against Muslims in New Jersey. The New Jersey complaints marked an 11.5% increase from 2020 and a 20% increase in 2019.
At the same time, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported antisemitic incidents rose by 25% in New Jersey during that same time period, reaching 370 total incidents—the highest number ever recorded by ADL in the state and the second-highest number recorded across the country last year.
Both reports cited specific incidents in North Jersey, the lowlight being Bergen County having the most antisemitic incidents in the state at 70. CAIR and ADL noted the 2021 incidents were an increase from pre-pandemic levels as well.
The disheartening truth is hate is a combination of human nature and something that is taught. We too often see the ostracizing of “The Other” not just in our society but worldwide, mostly based on skin color and religion.
Increasingly, the teachings do not come from family members but the internet. New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness in recent years has placed White racially motivated extremists in its highest level as threat to commit violence, with their primary recruitment being done over the Internet and social media.
Social media companies, specifically Meta/Facebook, Google and Twitter, have built their businesses by perfecting algorithms that will promote stories and videos to attract and maintain the numbers of eyes to their platforms. That is their business and we do not begrudge them for their success.
But where we do find fault is their lack of participation when it comes to addressing the limitations of free speech. Yes, there are limits as you can not shout fire in a crowded movie theater as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1919 and would 50 years later lead the highest court in the land to clarify inciting imminent lawless action.
Private companies have an ability to set the ground rules. Social media companies have shown instances where they have been willing to do that, here and in other countries. But more often than not they default to a Silicon Valley libertarian ethos that strips away real life outcomes.
Which brings us to Elon Musk. While we question his purchase more from a financial standpoint than a political one, we believe Musk has the absolute right to purchase the company and do with it as he wants.
The viewpoint of Musk as it pertains to politics is clear—he has expressed contempt for both extremes of the party but sees the left as more of the problem.
Again, he has every right to have that viewpoint as well as run his business in a way he sees fit. The issue is what type of control and oversight will be enforced. Musk’s pinned tweet reads in part that “If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”
That is where we wholeheartedly disagree. We absolutely believe in free speech. But we strongly hold that guardrails are necessary to ensure people are not targeted for the color of their skin, their religion, their politics or their sexuality. A balance needs to be maintained. To be the true town square that Musk believes Twitter is, the forum must have standards of decency that can make a more positive impact than any written law.
Social media companies, by their own design, have pushed many of us into our own echo chambers that we just accept opinion as fact despite not having the full story. The rise in extremists on both sides is not a glitch but a function of how we receive information today.
We hope that we are wrong, but the purchase of Twitter by Musk seems to be more of the same that prioritizes views and the bottom line compared to the damage it is doing to society as a whole.
Taking a cue from his mentor, why do we NOT expect Elon Musk to run for president in 2024? And, further, while he may rule Twitter that doesn’t mean I will be a subscriber/user.
You claim to believe in “free speech,” but you have had no problem with cancel culture (i.e., suppression of free speech) as implemented by the Leftist social media platforms. Now, with one of the most effective propaganda platforms seemingly slipping from Leftist control, your delicate sensibilities are suddenly concerned about “standards of decency” and the need for “guardrails.” LMAO.
James,
Cancel Culture and LMAO(I have no clue what that means). Are you 15 years old or would you like to relive your life?
I love how your blog focuses on hate speech first, to paint the picture that Elon’s intentions will help racists thrive. In reality he wants open dialog to thrive. In a short time we’ve seen Twitter suspend or remove people for merely asking questions about the Lab Leak theory, something that is now acceptable. They banned the NY Post (granted a hack paper) for posting about Hunter’s laptop which then also came out as the truth.
I can’t stand the right but the left has been visibly guilty for wrongly censoring people to support a narrative in lieu of letting people critically think their way to the truth. Elon owning it should be a win for society and North-JerseyNews should take note of it. People want fair and open journalism. Keep sh!t-posting these types of slanted blogs and the only thing interesting will be the comments section that refutes this site’s journalistic integrity.
The problem is any time someone shows the difference of opinion, they are labeled a racist or a liberal There is no longer discussions only arguments This has been systematically changing for a long time and is not the results of any one president or politician The result is further divisions based on social media and inaccurate information
Extremism is always a problem as those people have mind but they are not using their brain. Now ,to blame only one extreme side, shows you were are you coming from (James). Social media is the new town square. If somebody buys a supper megaphone that drowning all other speech, it is not free speech to the one that can not be heard. Society need guardrails to ensure that EVERYBODY can be heard. And crying Fire in a theater is not free speech. So those have to be our guiding principals.
Jon, how does Musk buying the far-Left social media platform Twitter, with the expectation that he will stop the overt shadow-banning and censorship of non-conforming (i.e., conservative) viewpoints, result in the CURBING of free speech? It would seem to any rational-thinking person to do exactly the OPPOSITE.
Rich, like most Leftists, since you are incapable of responding persuasively to my arguments, you turn to your only weapon: ad hominem attacks. You people think you are clever, but all you do is make obvious the bankruptcy of your positions.
Sick Liberal Article
James,
I am not a leftist. I believe in uncensored free speech. I also believe all “hate crime” legislation should be abolished.
WOW!! This is an Nicely WROTE Article!! Well thought 0ut!! Well intentioned!! AND; Well meaning!! I do Agree with what this Message is sending!!/
I’m sorry to tell you this but there is no “hate” exception to the first amendment. What you label as hate
is really just someone’s harsh and perhaps erroneous opinion that you strongly disagree with. Saying or writing unkind and false statements about racial, ethnic or religious groups is impolite and even hateful but at its core it’s still speech you don’t agree with. You also might want to note that when you liken “hate speech” as akin to falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was using this analogy to uphold the criminal conviction and imprisonment of someone whose crime was to distribute pamphlets that called the military draft of World War One unconstitutional.
If you are not a free speech absolutist, you will find yourself agreeing to more and more exceptions to the first amendment and may wake up one day to find there is no free speech anywhere.