Traynor: Fixing Free Speech [by abolishing it]

The Dartmouth ^ | ZACH TRAYNOR

[Slings and Arrows]

Free speech is often cited as a cornerstone of American democracy. Individuals or a group have the right to express themselves and say whatever they want with fairly few restrictions. As long as the speech does not imminently incite violence, constitute slander or libel, or have excessively objectionable content, the speech is allowed. This protects crucial kinds of free expression, like criticisms of the government or U.S. policy, the publication of potentially risqué or provocative works and the ability to mock others for comedic effect. It allows for dissenting but respectful viewpoints critical to our system of democracy: people can be heard even if they have an unpopular opinion, and they have the opportunity to convince people of the virtue of their point of view. That said, this country has gone too far in allowing people to say whatever they want, and should curtail speech that is obviously harmful to society, such as hate speech.

Those in support of aggressive civil liberties will protest: What is stopping the government from moving past sensible restrictions on free speech, once they are in place, to something more Orwellian, as in China or other authoritarian regimes? At face value, this is a fair question, but given America’s deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet and social media, such a scenario is highly unlikely. We need only small but significant change to the freedom of speech in this country: namely, the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech.

This kind of speech, despite being clearly distasteful, has long been upheld as legal in America because of the First Amendment. In the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court said a teenager burning a cross in an African-American family’s yard — an homage to the Ku Klux Klan — was constitutional. Despite the Supreme Court’s statement that this is “reprehensible,” and the clear violation of basic human decency cross-burning entails, the Court upheld this speech as permissable under the Constitution. The Westboro Baptist Church, known worldwide as a hate group which commonly uses racial and homophobic slurs, as well as protesting at funerals “thanking God” for the death of the individual, has their hatred constitutionally protected. The abhorrent “rape guide” from this past winter, posted on Bored at Baker? The individual responsible immediately left the College, but otherwise seemingly faced no legal penalties. If someone were to sit on South Main Street catcalling women, that individual’s “right” to do so is legally protected, as it does not incite immediate violence despite being objectively distressing. Free speech, as outlined in the First Amendment and clarified throughout numerous Supreme Court cases, regrettably allows all of these things.

This situation is patently absurd. This country is supposedly built on freedom and equality, not on the right to say whatever you want without significant consequences. Our country should not legally sanction hate speech, through which those in positions of social power can disparage others without legal repercussions. Many other countries limit this kind of speech, particularly speech that could cause undue harm (physical or emotional) to a targeted group of people. South Africa outlaws “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion” and war propaganda. Many European countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, have similar laws regarding racist speech. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that restrictions on free speech are permissible “as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,” allowing for greater flexibility and adaptabilty in a rapidly changing society. Perhaps the most well-known example of sensible restrictions on free speech is that it is illegal in Germany to publish material denying the Holocaust, and German hate speech law takes a hard line against anti-Semitism. How does America benefit from allowing speech that many other developed and democratic countries have wisely deemed to be against their modern values? A line can be drawn and hate speech can be defined through the democratic process. Many other developed and democratic nations have passed laws and instituted legal mechanisms that are quite simple in nature. America should do the same: hate speech is not acceptable and should not be legally protected.

[Pox]

This jackass is only advocating what all marxists desire, which would be that the government would be the ultimate judge of what is and is not acceptable “speech” (and by extension, what is acceptable thinking). With such tyrannical restrictions upon the populace, control and indoctrination would be absolute and unyielding.

Make no mistake, this asshole would like nothing more than to see marxist (i.e. extreme leftist ideology) thoughts and statements to be the only acceptable “speech” protected by our government.

These jerkoffs are so transparent that it's unbelievable, but the sad part is,. millions of morons in this country would agree with such atrocious ideology without understanding nor comprehending what it is they are truly advocating.

[Slings and Arrows]

Reagan’s quote about freedom never being more than a generation away from extinction springs to mind.

[NTHockey]

I’ll go along with Mr. Traynor IF he includes Mohammedans, MSNBC hosts, Louis Farrakhan and his gang of thugs, Harry Reid and all liberals.

Waiting..........

Hello, Mr. Traynor, are you there??????

[driftless2]

Mr. Traynor is a petty fascist, but he doesn't know it. Who gets to define what is harmful? Short of advocating murder, any kind of speech should be allowed. Yes, some speech is fit for certain situations...no profanity or sexually explicit speech in front of children for example.

But other than that there's very little speech that should be banned. And colleges that shut down speakers whose message they don't like are hurting themselves.

[metesky]

Here’s some “hate speech” for ya: STFU, you stinkin’ pussy!

[Slings and Arrows]

You make Pajama Boy cry.

[nathanbedford]

A line can be drawn and hate speech can be defined through the democratic process

No it can't. It is precisely the democratic process which the First Amendment seeks to avoid. Protected speech must be protected against the will of the majority.

This writer simply does not know what he/she is talking about. For example:

Our country should not legally sanction hate speech, through which those in positions of social power can disparage others without legal repercussions.

Does the author mean that people who are not in "positions of social power" can disparage others with impunity? So the right to free speech turns on identity politics, which social class are you in, what race, what gender, are you sufficiently PC?

Notice that the author does not even attempt to define "hate" speech except that it "disparages" others or is against "modern values." Notice also that the author resorts to redefining the English language. The author describes a subjective reaction by women to "catcalling" as being "objectively" distressing. The fictitious woman with a reaction, if she has one, may be positive or negative but whatever it is, it is her subjective reaction.

Ultimately, all censors seek to objectify their censorship the purpose always to make themselves appear reasonable as though what they are doing comes from some standard other than their own internal gyroscope.

These people are invariably self-righteous and extremely dangerous.

[Uncle Miltie]

I HATE pussies like Traynor. They are just vermin.

[Ramius]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

[Slings and Arrows]

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

An itchy fascist.

[Slings and Arrows]

The writer is assuming that he or someone like him will decide what is hate speech. He seeks to rule.

He reminds me of the Harvard student who wanted academic freedom abolished in the name of social justice.

[ontap]

This guys definition of hate speech goes in one direction I guarantee, one can say anything he wants about Whites, conservatives, Christians etc. Free speech started to disappear when the left chose to ruin any ones life if they muttered any thing about Blacks, Gays or any number of “The protect classes” of people!!

[Prospero]

Wow. I couldn’t get past, “excessively objectionable content,” a definition the author presumes we all share.

[Wilhelm Tell]

His idea of “defining speech through the democratic process” is dangerous. What the majority says and believes is seldom threatened with censorship. It is minority views that the government opposes that are likely to be censored by the majority. What would happen is that certain minority viewpoints that tend to have a statist view of things and are funded by powerful special interest groups would in essence be endorsed by the government (they would pay the government protection money) while those with opposing views would be thrown in prison. One can imagine gays and Islamists being very fiercely protected from all criticism while Christians would be censored and discriminated against.

[The Great RJ]

The good professor should more carefully read Orwell's 1984. We are rapidly getting to point of "thought crimes"

[Slings and Arrows]

What makes you think he hasn’t?