Traynor: Fixing Free Speech [by abolishing it]

The Dartmouth ^ | ZACH TRAYNOR

[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?