The entire debate illustrated in the prior cartoon boils down to the question "is there still systemic racism in US law?" If one "side" in that debate is correct, then the above is either correct, or the opposite is correct. (Neither is really correct, because even if speech is "further victimizing an already-victimized minority" this country is supposed to have free speech, which means that the label "hate speech" is a non-sequitur that has no remedy under legitimate law.)
The problem with "both sides" is that they're both unphilosophical, and both self-contradictory, and both "human." The truth is that Ds and Rs BOTH support a totally racist system of unjust or illegitimate "mala prohibita" law that violates the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution protects "the right of habeas corpus." The right of habeas corpus refers to the right of anyone accused of a crime to be informed of the crime they've committed, detailing the specific two elements that all crimes must possess. The common law defines "corpus delicti" as "the body of the crime" and that's the "corpus" that "habeas corpus" in Section 9 refers to. This "body of the crime" must have two elements. What are they? The simultaneous presence of both "injury" and "intent to injure" the same injured party, without their informed consent. If there was informed consent, or "injury without intent" then there is no corpus(no "crime"), but there may be "a civil offense," seeking "compensation for damages" to "make the injured party whole" but not to punish them.) If, at any time in the past 50 years, the white majority's rights were violated to the extent the current laws allow, then there would have been an armed rebellion. (This is less and less true as America's gun culture is slowly strangled by anti-gun "restrictions and regulations.") So whose rights are left to violate? Voting minorities' rights. So what about demographics like most Asian groups? First of all, Asians almost all voluntarily immigrated from somewhere else, where their government was horribly oppressive, causing rapid assimilation. This makes America seem freer than it is, and they have no problem obeying the less restrictive laws of the USA than China's, Vietnam's, or the Philippines' arbitrary and draconian laws.
...Mexicans can often claim to only speak Spanish, which can present a headache to white cops. (And Mexicans also had their run-ins with white, anglo-saxon "puritanical" or "theocratic" culture, even though their culture had already been victimized more excessively by Spanish Catholics.) Also, Mexicans had a seasonal migratory culture that adapted to white puritanistic control, primarily in the Western USA. ...Blacks had none of this History, and were always in a position of being victimized under the law (the very first Jim Crow laws were laws that denied firearms to those who did not obtain permission from Southern sheriffs to carry firearms ...permission was given to whites, and denied blacks, who were then disarmed and could be lynched at will). The very first anti-property-rights laws were anti-gun laws in the South, which were extended to Chicago in 1982 by the white racist socialist stooge of Chicago's racist law enforcement apparatus, Mayor Jane Byrne. Racist gun and drug laws were applied to blacks, but not to whites, and that became the model, Nationwide.
All laws against private property allow the political majority(white) to steal from the minority(black). That's simply the nature of sociopathic politicians, and their idiot support base. Yes, it's totally lawless, and totally unfair, and totally hypocritical. ...In addition to being totalitarian in philosophy.
...But this allows whites to claim to follow the laws (ie: "I'm good and obedient, and servile! I love law enforcement!") while allowing law enforcement to pretend this is true, even though all but the dumbest of them know it's not. In turn, when whites' kids "experiment with marijuana" or when "Hollywood celebrities" do so, they get a smack on the wrist, instead of LIFE-DESTROYING hard jail time. The prior can't be emphasized enough. There is an immense double-standard and every single voter in both major parties is guilty of perpetuating it.
...Including blacks. They have been victimized so long, that, in exchange for socialist handouts and patronage jobs (and the threat of retaliation if they resist), they've been willing to vote for white, socialist, property-rights-violating "drug warriors" who imprison THEIR OWN CHILDREN, permeating their whole society with FELONY CONVICTIONS that perpetuate the myth that "blacks are more criminal than whites." (Every population becomes criminal if their mistakes are exploited with higher statistical frequency than other populations!)
...In fact, the opposite is true (whites are more criminal than blacks, becase the crime of corrupting the law is a far greater crime than petty crime). Moreover: drug use actually isn't technically "criminal" under the U.S. Constitution's common law (the form of criminal law that the USA inherited from Britain).
Logic isn't human. Reason isn't human. Both of the prior are rare refinements of human mental capacity that are not found consistently in any one human brain to any significant degree. This is the reason entire human societies often destroy themselves with totalitarian systems that concentrate political power in the hands of those who seek it. Most people are not scientific thinkers, and even most scientists are unscientific in areas that they are not highly-specialized in.
Most humans are big, rolling balls of hypocrisy, good only sometimes at what they claim to be good at.
Trump supporters commonly argue that "they're not racist," and "racism isn't a problem in the USA anymore." The former is often not true, and the latter objectively isn't true. Here's how you can prove it: see if they'll live in a neighborhood where door-to-door police searches happen. See if they'll encourage the police in their area to search door-to-door, tearing out the drywall of everyone who refuses! ....Nope! They won't. But this happens repeatedly in areas where large populations of blacks live.
Moreover, any Sheriff who targets everyone in a white community the way poor, predominantly-black communities are targeted would lose the very next election. In fact, when poor white communities are targeted "too much" they often DO kick out an egregiously pro-theft sheriff. ...But black communities cannot change county-wide policy in big cities where they once concentrated their voting power and built their communities around the now-mistaken "safety in numbers" principle. (This no longer affords much protection, as the police have become a technologically-enabled "standing army" ...exactly like the ones the Federalist Papers warned Americans not to tolerate.)
On door-to-door, no-knock "raids."...If they happened as frequently everywhere as they happen in poor areas, especially on public thoroughfares, there'd be an armed rebellion overnight. (Or, 15% of the USA would go to prison, and the USA would instantly be transformed into an obviously totalitarian nation, since that's 50,000,000 white people who have not violated anyone else's rights. This still might happen, but it would take robotic police to enforce it, and is the primary likelihood behind a "malevolent Singularity.")
...But instead of that happening, only state-wide voting minorities are caught and punished horribly by a grotesquely unjust and unconstitutional set of laws. Only certain communities and class are targeted. If you're a wealthy black man, you might still get targeted for a search, but it's less likely. If you're Edward Lawson, who briefly forced police departments across the nation to admit that they were racially profiling drivers due to race, you get pulled over 45 times in one month, and you lose your job because POLICE ARE CONSTANTLY TARGETING YOU.
Some mainstream voters say "the response of the black community to racism makes the problem worse." ...And this is true as well. Black communities have continuously elected "uncle tom" socialists(usually "Democrats" who oppose democratic access to the ballot with increasingly higher "signature requirements" for being listed on the ballot) who serve the prison industry in their communities. ...Such as Jesse Jackson Jr. I personally confronted Jackson Jr. about his support for the drug war at a now-closed "Borders Books" on Michigan and Chicago Avenues in Chicago, and he blew me off, claiming to care, but with obvious uncaring, in January of 2000. Jackson's psychological profile of sociopathy and narcissism (as well as his total betrayal of his community) probably contributed to his recent personal mental breakdown, gross abuse of campaign funds, and later prison sentence. (For what it's worth, I don't think he should have been punished for grossly misspending campaign funds: he was an obvious socialist charlatan, and his crime was victimless. What did his donors expect? Also: spending money given to one is not abuse unless he claimed it would be spent otherwise. He only claimed he'd spend the money to win re-election, which he did. Why spend more than is necessary to fulfill a promise? Should he have bough unnecessary foam-board signs destined for a landfill?) ...Even so, he was a pariah among those in his community who were paying attention ...often those with a felony disenfranchisement.
Of course, many blacks have prison records that they've been wrongly-informed (in Illinois, anyway) prevent them from voting, and in many states, a felony does disallow future voting. Even in Illinois, Dorenda Dixon(who once ran a government-grant-funded official IL felony re-enfranchisement program) proclaimed that prison guards and the sheriff's office usually lied to prisoners, informing them that they were never allowed to vote again.
The government schools are also a sick joke. (Why isn't this a fact in Asian communities? ...Because Asians often had ONE SINGLE generation that either viewed the USA as a huge improvement over the country they escaped, OR they've had an unbroken chain of people SINCE that generation. ...Such people inherently view education the way Frederick Douglass viewed it: as their one chance for a good life. ...In communities that have been systematically disenfranchised via the drug war, this sense of hope and awareness is often not present.)
Neither mainstream political "side" (Democrat, "liberal/socialist", or Republican "conservative/theocrat") wants to take credit for blacks turning out worse than certain more successful minorities, such as many asian groups. (Although certain asian populations, such as poor Vietnamese in Los Angeles also had significant amounts of gang activity, they were more localized, and also harder for corrupted law enforcement to infiltrate, because they weren't large enough to serve the parasitic purposes of "law enforcement." Also, such asian populations didn't have an unbroken history of being targeted by a police power that viewed it as prey, nor did they enter the US as "targeted minorities," except in the case of the Chinese in California, prior to 1800. Even then, their language was inscrutable, and populist racist politicians were unsuccessful at extending anti-Chinese laws much beyond the early 1900s.)
The drug war in the USA institutionalizes racism against the largest minorities in the USA. Why? Because that allows them to maximize theft from a minority incapable of defending itself against the criminal law enforcement community. A simple Google or YouTube search for "Matt Fogg US Marshal" or "Freeway Rick Ross" reveals well-documented, true and verifiable cases where the US government was caught, red-handed, targeting minority communities, often on the basis of geography, so they could claim that "that's where the drugs are being sold." ...Of course, they also target and "squeeze" minorities, BECAUSE ANY WAR ON ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WAGE WITHOUT VIOLATING DUE PROCESS AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The prior bold sentence is inescapably true, but most white people avoid learning its truth. This is a defense mechanism. They wouldn't be able to view themselves as civilized and well-informed people if they sought out information on this subject. ...Because it looks like the data points in this direction(it does), they simply avoid exploring the actual data. They don't want to find out that they've been voting for laws more racist than Southern Jim Crow laws of the 1860s.
This means that both Democrats and Republicans are both racist and dishonest, at some level (if they weren't, they'd be libertarians, or at least in favor of legalizing all drugs, so that there were no longer laws that were easily-exploitative of minorities, and unjust when used against anyone). When confronted with their own racism, they deny it, but continue to vote for policies that can easily be, and are, enforced unequally.
IF IT CAN BE ENFORCED UNEQUALLY, ONLY A POLLYANNA NAIVE FUCKING IDIOT THINKS IT WON'T BE.
(Reason Magazine has clearly documented this, as have many, many, many popular invesigations of the subject. For example, the congressional testimony that made marijuana illegal said this: "The primary reason for the outlaw of marijuana is its affect on the degenerate races.")
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
...Most closeted racists aren't so naive as to defend uneven enforcement of the law, but some are. They seem to inherently understand that laws that can be selectively enforced will be enforced in the manner which creates THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. Who's an easier target? A white person who may be related to a judge or U.S. Senator, and has enough money to hire a high-priced lawyer, or a poor black person, who can't possibly muster support, even from his entire community, to unseat a single statewide policy-maker?
The answer, to law enforcement, is obvious. ...And their actions show it.
The answer, to law enforcement's supporters is also obvious, and their actions show that they know this. They run away from further questioning, if you start to use this line of questioning, even if they just spoke with you for an hour and gave no indication of any hurry. (That's a huge "tell" that someone doesn't like the true implications of their critic's winning argument, and were only willing to "engage" so long as that engagement indicated that their position appeared legitimate.)
...White voters faced with this information run away from libertarians (who have been speaking the truth since Reason magazine and the Libertarian Party were founded, in the 1970s). I've seen it many hundreds of times.
...If all of the prior sounds like Marcuseanism(the idea that "those in power" should be held to a higher standard of justice that accounts for their "privilege"), then that's unfortunate, but somewhat true. While that formulation of "forced equality of outcome" should never be CODED INTO LAW, it is a fact of reality that informs all legitimate consequentialist views. (Do we accept an unjust consequence, or do we rebel? If the Founders had not differentiated British loyalists from minutemen, they'd have lost the revolutionary war.)
...To deny this is to deny reality. (Herbert Marcuse adapted Marxism to postmodernism, so that Marxists could claim a biological or Darwinian basis for the same, shitty Marxist policies that have never worked. ...But nonetheless, social status and statistically-enforced inequality DO produce different outcomes. ...Which is why we should pursue equality under the law, as soon as possible. ...And if we persist to hold power, we shouldn't be surprised when, one day, black people ruin us as badly as they've been ruined.)
I'm not in favor of "reparations" and "punching up," ...so what am I advocating?
I'm advocating we legalize all drugs (and guns), and thereby follow the U.S. Constitution and the common law it frequently references. (In Article 1, Section 9, and in the Bill of Rights, by referring to "due process.")
Moreover: We don't even need to change a single law, because ALL DRUGS ARE ALREADY TECHNICALLY LEGAL. ...We just need to smarten up. Even though unmarried cohabitation laws were still on the books in many states, prosecutors simply stopped enforcing them in the late 1980s, because they couldn't find jurors willing to convict. (Because greater than 98% of the public opposed such laws, after the 1960s.) Unfortunately, 98% of the public hasn't figured out that drug laws are stupid, and violate the Bill of Rights. Luckily, since any one juror can "hang the jury" even 5% informed resistance is enough to make any law unenforceable. ...If you behave as an informed juror, as previously described. Prosecutors are counting on you not doing this. .95^12 = .5403 or "a 54% chance of conviction." (No prosecutor will enter court with a 54% chance of conviction. They'll dismiss the case long before then. ...So this is a mathematically-winning strategy. ...In fact, simply informing jurors of their powers and coaching them how to avoid "contempt of court" citations for refusing to apply the Fugitive Slave Law was credited with ending slavery in many areas of the pre-1960 North.)
So, when you get called for jury duty, REMEMBER: if you speak out against the drug laws in the pre-trial questioning("voir dire"), they'll just send you home and replace you with a "rubber stamp" idiot who is willing to convict.
...So that's why you shut up, answer the "voir dire" questions like an obedient conformist(answer exactly the way everyone else answers them), and then, once-seated, VOTE "NOT GUILTY." It really is that simple.
Everyone would benefit, even though this is counter-intuitive (for idiots, who are, unfortunately, the vast majority of the U.S. population).
Why are most voters closeted racist idiots? Because that's what the government-run schools taught them to be, in the domain of "politics." Not one person in 1,000 can say what their rights as members of the jury are, nor can they define "voir dire" or its rightful limits. (Voir dire is the unconstitutional questioning you'll be subjected to if you're called for jury duty. ...Which only exists because it was instated as a means of enforcing the fugitive slave law against Northern abolitionists. VERY ironically, bar-licensed dipshits now defend this questioning as "a way of removing racists from juries" ...by using the example of racist outcomes from the South. ...Which, ironically, used "voir dire" to remove non-racists from the jury, and which, even more ironically, allowed testimony from racist Sheriffs and racist prosecutors to be given to the jury.)
...So basically, "If white America told the truth for one day, its world would collapse" isn't just as song by "the manic street preachers."
...It's the truth.
if white america told the truth for one day its world would fall apart
So yes, if Griffin had made a piece of artwork like the one on the right, she'd have been called a racist, because she's white, and Obama was black, and as I've written, America is a racist shithole with the highest prison population(and highest probation and parole "second class citizenship" population) in the world. The land of the free not only is no longer free for anyone, ...it's worse for geographically-concentrated blacks and Mexicans, especially if they're impoverished.
...But the true test of this is whether or not it would be seen as "uncle tom" or "racist" for a black militant to be holding Obama's head in the cartoon on the right.
...The answer is probably "in poor taste" ...but not racist.
...Just like the honest answer is that the for anyone who's not an anti-free-speech snowflake is that either one is "acceptable political dissent."
Man the fuck up.
After all, you're entire fucking neighborhood isn't a crime-zone created by artificially-law-enforcement-manufactured felony-conviction job-displacement.
...And you're not the victim of white hypocrisy.
...Or if you are, and you don't have a problem with it, you're an uneducated simpleton.
And no, my story doesn't change when I get around blacks and Mexicans, or around white police officers.
Reality is reality. Stop being a bitch, and accept that the USA is overwhelmingly white and racist, and that the Democrat socialist sociopaths are every bit as wretchedly racist and police-state-loving as the Republican socialist sociopaths are.
Or, better yet, instead of accepting it, CHANGE IT BACK TO A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WHERE PROPERTY RIGHTS APPLY TO EVERYONE, INSTEAD OF NO-ONE.