Skip to main content

Sorry, Federalist Writer, There Is Such A Thing As Hate Speech

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


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...