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 ...
The LA Times is secure behind a pay-wall.
Please add a few more bricks to the top.
Didn’t SCOTUS rule otherwise just two days ago? 8-0.
Stop violence. When you have eliminated all unjust violence you can turn your attention to this. But you are not willing to stop m*slims from murdering humans, or inner-city people from murdering each other. You want that to continue.
Since you won’t stop violence, then STFU.
The real reason: Shut up those whe disagree with us by designating everything they say as “hate speech.”
Go Redskins.
+1
So is calling a black man a ni***r hate speech?
If yes, then everyone regardless of race, creed and color needs to be held to that standard.
But when the mitigating circumstances of the offender based on race, creed and color excuse this behavior, that is a problem.
The law should be equal for all regardless of race, sex, political affiliation, etc. If you allow exception based on these that becomes discrimination (in today’s upside down world).
Can I play my favorite tune Dixie in public again now?
Despite the 1st Amendment—I tell my students—local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech.
What speech can be regulated is extremely limited and controlled. What she is pushing for is the opposite, defining what speech will be allowed.
As with most liberals she has her assumptions on backwards.
Some lemme understand her argument: because the SCt has interpreted the 1st Amendment (something the founding fathers didn’t intend for them to do, btw), government should not be allowed to ban ANY speech a certain percentage of their constituents may find offensive? That’s EXACTLY the type of power the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the federal gov’t from acquiring. Sounds to me like this “professor” doesn’t understand the origins and purpose of the 1st Amendment.
All she knows is that the SCt can now do whatever it wants. Jefferson was absolutely right in the screed he wrote to Marshall after the Maybury v. Madison decision: It did create a slippery slope, and the SCt will forever be making decisions based on the political winds and partisanship. Of course she can’t understand why they should stop here.
Let’s start by restricting the hate speech of the author. The mere idea we should restrict “hate sppech” by her definition is reason enough to shut her up
BTW, Im sure there are plenty of white people who resent being referred to as “rednecks”. Where’s the “outrage” over that? Where’s the mention of that in articles like these? What say you, Laura?
No it’s always the PC Crowd who are the victims and the rest of us are the bad guys...except of course for the pandering honkies, like the author here
“...government should NOW be allowed...”
The case for reading the Constitution.
“The case for restricting hate speech”
Then what would the Democrats have to say?
The Nazis declared Jews non-human and made killing Jews the same as eradicating insects.
The liberals declare everything they disagree with “hate speech” and make eliminating the First Amendment the same as changing zoning laws.
RIGHT on
This “hate speech stuff” is another liberal/libtard stupid mantra !
And what about hate of hate ?
Could “hate” be sometimes justified ?
Another hoax ad bubble trying to hide the tough and plain reallity with the tricks and lies of those , libtards , trying to distract attention from facts
Laura Beth Nielsen
Is it hate speech to call her a typical leftist hate-filled slut?
If so, I plead guilty.
Straight to the point !
If you criticize libtard croocks and filthy traitors , you are speaking words of “hate”
“traditionally marginalized groups”
That’s a mouthful. I think she means “those singled out by the Left for government privileges”.
I find this article extremely offensive. It should be banned as hate speech. But then, I’m not a member of a “traditionally marginalized group”, just a member of an actually marginalized group (i.e., American conservatives).
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.