Peter Brimelow has discussed the expansion of speech codes to cover not just "hate speech" but "hate facts" -- that is, data that is objectively true, sometimes even deriving from government sources, but which might darken the public's outlook towards multiculturalism and thus must never be mentioned. Pointing out, for instance, that in America, blacks commit roughly 85 percent of interracial crime, which the New Century Foundation documented not too long ago, is certainly not allowed at the New York Times and would probably get most undergrads suspended.
"Hate facts" can be visual, too, as in you're not allowed to believe your lying eyes.
In Sweden, the press is regularly suppressing and altering pixelated crime photos in which the race of the alleged perpetrator is still discernible. Blurry images of brown and black faces are being digitally bleached in order to make criminals seem less African and Arab.
The European blogger Cordelia For Lear writes,
The left who constantly claims race doesn't matter, doesn't seem to be consistent with their claims when they deliberately blur (pixel) the non-whites photos in the press whilst adding the photoshop effect of bleaching the skin, giving the reader the impression that the alleged Swedish criminal trully is a Swedish man, white male. The opposite of course occours whenever there's white Swedish men who has committed a crime. Then the individual will be overly exposed, name, real, uncensored photoes and it will be written about for days.
Why stop at making pixilated images of black and brown people seem white? Most people can guess a criminal's race by hearing the neighborhood in which the crime occurred. Why doesn't the Swedish press simply take the next logical step and start falsely reporting on a white-on-Arab crime wave sweeping Scandinavia.
Perhaps I shouldn't give them any ideas...