[Owen]

This woman worded her answer poorly.

The correct answer is:

The First Amendment’s protection of free speech is extremely powerful. A casual call for genocide of anyone is not some sort of punishable crime — because of the overriding protection of freedom of speech. This is the context of the circumstance. Freedom of speech transcends calls for genocide because there is no immediate translation of such a thing into danger or violence. It’s not yelling fire in a crowded theater. It’s words on a computer screen.

She could have worded things better. She’s losing her career over this and that is an injustice.

[Night Hides Not]

Your comments regarding the First Amendment are flawed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

IOW, the First Amendment is there to protect citizens from the government. The reaction to Magill's comments had nothing to do with her free speech rights.

[rbg81]

She could have worded things better. She’s losing her career over this and that is an injustice.

---

The other thing is that Ivy League schools have criminalized speech contrary to “The Narrative” and even microagressions over the last 15 years. However, only if you belong to a “privileged” group. If you are viewed as an “oppressor”, it’s open season on you.

[Go_Raiders]

That take seems over-lawyered to the point of losing the thread. This is not about the right to speak, it is about the right to intimidate.

The part of the First Amendment at issue in this situation is the Establishment of a State Religion, not the vagaries of the level of violence inherent in the words themselves.

If there is a government-operated institution policy designed to limit bullying and harassment, and it is applied by said institution to certain relatively mild expressions inherent in one religion and not applied to extreme expressions inherent in another, then it is for all intents and purposes establishment of the moral supremacy of the favored religion.

Or in this case, amoral supremacy.

I agree with you that allowing abhorrent speech is vital to a free society. However, the United States hasn’t had a free society for over 100 years. At this point the battle needs to be forcing the Karens to live under the idiotic rules they force upon others.