The case for restricting hate speech

LA Times ^ | June 21, 2017 | Laura Beth Nielsen

[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.”

[slumber1]

This is why we don't restrict "hate speech"

Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media

[ichabod1]

It’s now spelled D-I-E-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y.

[Mariner]

From the article:

“Many readers will find this line of thinking repellent. They will insist that protecting hate speech is consistent with and even central to our founding principles. They will argue that regulating hate speech would amount to a serious break from our tradition. They will trivialize the harms that social science research undeniably associates with being the target of hate speech, and call people seeking recognition of these affronts “snowflakes.”

Yep, that would be me.

As a white man I suffer institutionalized hate speech daily.

But I would not use the force of the state to restrict it. I believe I can handle that myself.

It’s the SNOWFLAKES that wish to harness the power of the state to further repress the White Male.