Posted on 06/22/2017 6:39:53 AM PDT by C19fan
As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some can’t grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we don’t also restrict hate speech. Why, for example, did the Supreme Court on Monday rule that the trademark office cannot reject “disparaging” applications—like a request from an Oregon band to trademark “the Slants” as in Asian “slant eyes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Hate speech is code for criticism among others. By selectively applying hate speech they can end all criticism of their ideas, policies and actions.
First we need a definition of hate speech.
As Democrats understand it, they can angrily yell threats and it is free speech. When Ann Coulter calmly mocks liberal views, it is hate speech.
Perhaps the very first standard should be rejection of self-serving double-standards.
The restrictions on speech, such as libel, obscenity, and incitement are based on direct and reasonable harm.
Reasonable harm.
Obscenity is the weakest of that and is your “in” on arguing hate speech regulation but obscenity has long since been regulated to a narrow issue.
Hate speech is so very subjective that you can’t generally get most people to agree on what precisely harm comes from it. Ego? Self-identity? Who cares.
But if the government wants to lock up folks who advocate for melanin theory, say that Europeans are cavebeasts, and that whiteness is problematic, who am I to say “no”?
sure, as long as “I” get to decide what is “hate speech”
I personally find most leftist speeches quite hateful, so we will start the banning with those! and then move on to Hollywood!
I suppose the professor would be the one to define who is to be considered as marginalized or disadvantaged. I would bet that fat cats, capitalist pigs and crackers would not be among them.
Congress shall make no law...
Free speech for me, but not for thee. That’s some tired stuff.
As can be seen from the article above, this `OK for me but not you’ attitude is even held by critters who claim to defend the 2nd: if you want to issue gun carry permits in DC, why just to yourselves?
The BOR only applies in some states? To some Americans?
DC isn’t a part of the US?
“hate speech” = everything I disagree with.
That is, "hate speech" to one is simply a contrary position to another.
“Shut up those whe disagree with us by designating everything they say as “hate speech.”.............
Would be a great idea to shut down the liberal demodummies, everything coming out of their mouths seems to be “hate speech” these days.
Great response! Exposes the left’s hypocrisy
Exactly!
The word diversity is sometimes used by some people in a way that is demeaning and hateful to some other people.... so how about we start by banning the word diversity.
The case for restricting press freedom.
How’s that taste, Times?
The concept of “hate speech” is a toxic fiction invented to facilitate the imposition of tyranny.
It is incumbent on every decent person to oppose this effort in every way. When someone utters the words “hate speech,” they should be ridiculed, scorned, abominated, driven from the society of sane people.
Many today are too young to remember the world before the forces of evil concocted and sold this vile notion. I don’t know if those people can be brought back to rationality, but at the very least they must be kept from positions of power.
No one who thinks “hate speech” is a real thing should ever be in charge of anything, not even a mop and bucket.
Actually...the very fact that I can type "cracker" but not "n*gger" is revealing in and of itself.
I quit reading after the second sentence or so. She is precisely wrong - we DON’T regulate obscenity libel, or inciting violence, at least not against liberals.
No offense lady, but your students are stupid.
Great News!
The LA Times will no longer publish comments by Democrat politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.