Imagine if someone got up on national television and said to millions of viewers, “F–- Hillary.”

What if that person were a famous, wealthy, highly regarded member of the entertainment establishment?

What would be the consequences of that act?

For certain, that person would find it difficult, if not impossible, to continue his or her work in Hollywood. Wouldn’t you agree?

For certain, that person would be denounced by most rational, lucid people, including me and millions of other Americans who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. Wouldn’t you agree?

For certain, it would be a long time before such a person were given the stage, again, and an open microphone on live national television. Wouldn’t you agree?

It would be considered incitement. It would be considered the very essence of “hate speech.” But it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen. Why?

Because most people who don’t like Hillary Clinton would never do that. It would be completely out of character. I take a backseat to no one in my contempt for her. I think she’s a hateful person – vindictive, petty, egotistical, vain, dangerous, spiteful. Yet, it’s unimaginable that I would ever do something like that. I would certainly welcome the chance to denounce her and most everything she stands for. But I would not do it for the following reasons:

  • I don’t use language like that – not in public or private.
  • There would be very grave consequences, including being shunned by her supporters as well as her detractors.
  • I would never be trusted again with a national television audience and would be unwelcome in what we once called “polite company.”
  • It would be a “hateful” thing to do, and I am not a hateful person.
  • I would be concerned such an inflammatory action would result in some nut being stirred up by such an inciteful verbal assault to violent action against her or, more likely, me.
  • Something like that would be what I consider “hate speech” – targeted against a specific individual as well as those who hold her in high regard.

Hillary is a twice failed candidate for president. Imagine, though, that she won the 2016 election. Would it change anything with regard to my hypothetical scenario? I don’t think so, except, perhaps, to make the offense much more egregious. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now consider the reaction to Robert De Niro doing just this on the Tony Awards show – not directed at Hillary, of course, but against President Trump.

How many of his colleagues denounced him? You can count them on one hand.

Did he or will he pay any price for it? No.

Will he be invited back to be a guest on future shows of this kind? Without question. My guess is his phone is ringing off the hook with offers.

Did he have any concerns about the remark being considered inciteful? No, he probably considered it to be insightful, maybe even inspired – as did many others in the audience who gave him a standing ovation.

Most importantly, did anyone call it “hate speech”? No. Those who loved De Niro’s verbal assault saw it as a denunciation of one they considered to be the personification of hate in Donald Trump.

And there’s my main point.

What are the most inflammatory, inciteful, hateful two-word phrases you can say about someone? “Kill so-and-so” or F–- so-and-so.” Am I right? Am I missing anything?

So, when people who say they abhor “hate speech” stand up and applaud “hate speech,” I have to question their sincerity about their supposed opposition to “hate speech.”

That’s why I know that all the rage on the left about “hate speech” and “speech codes” and “safe zones” is absolutely, 100 percent disingenuous. Instead, it is a strategy, a tactic, devised to target those whom they hate. And, do I need to add there is no one they hate more than Donald Trump?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.