“To use these meanings and symbols that are so abhorrent in our society, it’s clear why the police would take it seriously, and they did.”
-Dan Webb
#freespeechmatters 17.12.2021
While many of you may already be aware, Jussie Smollet, best known for his role in “Empire,” was found guilty on five of the six charges brought against him for falsely alleging a hate crime against him in 2019. He claimed that two men attacked him based on the color of his skin and the fact that he is a homosexual.
He was found guilty of telling an officer he was a victim of a hate crime and battery (two charges), telling a detective he was a victim of a hate crime and battery (two charges), and telling another detective that he was a victim of battery. He was not found guilty on a sixth charge of telling another detective he was an “aggravated battery victim.”
Smollet lied to police about the alleged incident, having paid two brothers a total of $3,500 to stage the attack in Chicago. Police report that 26 officers spent 3,000 hours at a cost of $100,000 investigating a fake crime. In their investigation, they found exactly what the jury determined: Smollet intentionally misled police and the hate crime reported was a complete hoax.
While this is a free speech blog, I realistically understand there are limits to free speech. For instance, if your speech involves lying to officers and costing them time and taxpayer’s money, then your speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Smollet wanted to be part of continuing the racial divide narrative in our country, so he he used the world as his stage and put on another poor performance. The two actors that “jumped him” were wearing red hats to signal they were doing so in support of then-President Donald Trump.
Not to mention, the chilling effect that was placed on calling Smollet a liar before more evidence came to light was troubling. People were crucified for suggesting that he possibly staged the whole thing, a conspiracy theory that later turned out to be true. You weren’t allowed to question the narrative Smollet was promoting, because it was universally accepted by every elite in this country.
Smollet is evidence that there are people in this country that do not want to have an honest conversation regarding race. Instead of facing the harsh realities that actually exist in the world, he created his own fantasy where the racial divide is magnified. That was not by mistake. He wants us to believe that tensions are higher than they actually are. He attempted to take advantage of our emotions for his own personal gain. In my opinion, the jury came to the right conclusion. This wasn’t political speech. His political speech ended when he led an entire investigation of police down his fantasy lane.
Comments