John Daniel Davidson, writer at the far-right website The Federalist, just released an article entitled, "Sorry, College Kids, There's No Such Thing As Hate Speech," and I felt the need to rebut. In the article, while Davidson made some fair points, especially with regard to the seeming irony of violence at hate-speech rallies, he lost me with his claim that there's no such thing as hate speech, yet he feels liberals define hate speech as any opinion which runs contrary to theirs. Here's what he had to say specifically on the matter:
"By hate speech, they (liberals) mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is is the taking of human life? That's hate speech. Think transgenderism is a form of mental illness? Hate speech. Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.
But in fact, there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, 'Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?' is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or 'hateful' are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest."
According to the dictionary, hate speech is defined as "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."
So, in other words, there is such a thing as "hate speech," and when it comes to Mr. Davidson's examples of what liberals view "hate speech" as, he batted 1 for 5, or .200 (20%). Look, I'll be the first to admit I believe a person or group of people showcasing anger and violence at a protest for a peaceful cause does nothing but damage the image of said person or group. I also have mixed feelings on universities cancelling scheduled speakers, for while it's the universities' right to schedule said speakers, it's also the students' right to protest. Not only that, we have to admit, no matter how much we may dislike the rhetoric, "hate speech" is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In having said all that, however, what may people like John Daniel Davidson seem to forget is the fact that, while we may all possess the freedom to express hateful opinions toward one group or another, we're not free from the potential repercussions of those very utterances. If we were to make a hateful statement toward Muslims at the workplace, while the government can't persecute us for our bigoted opinion, chances are we're going to be fired. In one's own personal life, so long as he or she doesn't endanger the lives of others, they're free to express whatever they so choose (with exceptions of course). In a person's own professional life, however, that's when "hate speech" tends to trend from free-to-speak to job-free.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/#disqus_thread
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
"By hate speech, they (liberals) mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is is the taking of human life? That's hate speech. Think transgenderism is a form of mental illness? Hate speech. Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.
But in fact, there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, 'Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?' is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or 'hateful' are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest."
According to the dictionary, hate speech is defined as "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."
So, in other words, there is such a thing as "hate speech," and when it comes to Mr. Davidson's examples of what liberals view "hate speech" as, he batted 1 for 5, or .200 (20%). Look, I'll be the first to admit I believe a person or group of people showcasing anger and violence at a protest for a peaceful cause does nothing but damage the image of said person or group. I also have mixed feelings on universities cancelling scheduled speakers, for while it's the universities' right to schedule said speakers, it's also the students' right to protest. Not only that, we have to admit, no matter how much we may dislike the rhetoric, "hate speech" is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In having said all that, however, what may people like John Daniel Davidson seem to forget is the fact that, while we may all possess the freedom to express hateful opinions toward one group or another, we're not free from the potential repercussions of those very utterances. If we were to make a hateful statement toward Muslims at the workplace, while the government can't persecute us for our bigoted opinion, chances are we're going to be fired. In one's own personal life, so long as he or she doesn't endanger the lives of others, they're free to express whatever they so choose (with exceptions of course). In a person's own professional life, however, that's when "hate speech" tends to trend from free-to-speak to job-free.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/#disqus_thread
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech
Comments
Post a Comment