People of my generation as required reading in school read George Orwell’s classic novel 1984. As we got older between the early 70’s and the approaching decade we were keeping our eye on the year1984. When the year came and the prophecy apparently didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of democracy had survived the approaching notion of “Big Brother”. Whatever other terrors that had been foist upon society, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another-slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling book: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. In fact, these two futuristic proponents could not be more diametrically opposed.

George Orwell warned that we would be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision ... people will come to love their oppression, and to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.

What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared that there would be those who would deprive us of information.

Huxley feared those who would give us so much useless information that we would be reduced to passivity.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.

Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.

Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with the touchy feelies, the “I reject your truth” mentality and finally, “there can be no absolute truth” crowd.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by causing pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by an endless appetite for pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ultimately destroy us. So which prognosticator was right?

Hate Speech

In the United States there is no law on the books anywhere saying that it is forbidden for its citizens to tell the truth; not in as many words that is. Yet “Hate Speech” is a term for that verbal communication which is increasingly being forbidden and punished by law. It is speech that someone deems to be intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.(There’s a catch all phrase if I’ve ever heard one). In other words, if you think that someone looks down on you in anyway and somehow publicly communicates that disdain, you can have him arrested and jailed in the United States of America! The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on factors such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or mental health. Preachers are being arrested and sued for preaching Gods word straight from the Bible in their own pulpits.There has been an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on socio-economic class in the United States. But for many North Americans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public) and downright immoral. Isn’t it the height of irony that the mere act of labeling immorality via the spoken word, is in and of itself now deemed to be immoral?  In Lewis Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland, Alice states,

“ If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”

My friends, we are living in that world. It is taboo to use certain words or discuss certain subjects that the”Thought Police” fear may be offensive or illegal. In some contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria. Where does it end? It ends at the same place that it began and that is anyone who rejects what others think or say about them can cry “Hate speech” and have the truth teller arrested. Why do I say “Truth Teller”? Because if an individual makes statements saying that he thinks all “Vulgarians” are lazy, that is to be considered a true statement because he Does consider that to be true. Remember we are talking about expressing through communication what you believe to be true.This is merely one small step from hate thought. George Orwell in His prescient classic 1984 wrote:

"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed--would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper--the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 1

You say “That would never happen. You can’t be punished for what you are thinking”. Let me remind you that there are and long have been, varying degrees of murder ranging from involuntary manslaughter to “Premeditated murder”. To premeditate means to think about something before you actually engage in the activity of which you thought. If you kill me as I am walking down the street, for no apparent reason, you will be charged with murder. If you kill a homosexual and law enforcement can show that you did not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, you will be charged with the more serious offense of “Hate Crime”. In other words, the Homosexual’s life has more value than mine does in the eyes of the law. Why? I suppose it’s because you killed me because you didn’t like me, but you killed him because you hated him. Doesn’t any attitude towards a human being that causes you to kill them indicate hate on your part? And why is hate a more serious portend of culpability than robbery, or sexual deviance? That’s the $64,000 question.