« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’  (Read 480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’
« on: June 22, 2017, 07:52:03 pm »
LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’

John SextonPosted at 3:21 pm on June 22, 2017

Wednesday the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed titled, “The case for restricting hate speech.” It’s an interesting piece which seems to connect to many of the debates currently taking place over free speech on campuses around the country. The author’s basic claim is that “hate speech” can do actual harm and therefore ought to be regulated:

Someone must have broken in to the Times and tampered with the headline which they wanted to run which was "the case for RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH."
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 07:54:12 pm by rangerrebew »
Logged

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2017, 08:00:20 pm »
Quote from: rangerrebew on June 22, 2017, 07:52:03 pm
LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’

John SextonPosted at 3:21 pm on June 22, 2017

Wednesday the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed titled, “The case for restricting hate speech.” It’s an interesting piece which seems to connect to many of the debates currently taking place over free speech on campuses around the country. The author’s basic claim is that “hate speech” can do actual harm and therefore ought to be regulated:

Someone must have broken in to the Times and tampered with the headline which they wanted to run which was "the case for RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH."

And just like the argument for 2nd Amendment "Reasonable" gun restrictions, the definition and class of what constitutes 'hate' will be decided by Government with punishment for violators being meted out by the same.

Which, if they actually achieve this - any speech deemed "hate" towards government or politicians will be actionable.

Which effectively guts the first Amendment altogether - because once speech can be 'reasonably regulated' and any speech deemed 'hate' restricted - writing and press follow, along with assembly and petition for regress of grievances.

But it sounds good for a snowflake population to consume and demand, and the tyranny our Founders sought to stop will have been enshrined by our own people.


Logged
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,386
  • Gender: Male
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2017, 08:16:07 pm »

Today on the gun thread, we were informed the reasons for RKBA were now obsolete, since we didn't need them to replace the government by force if necessary.

I assume some would similarly now argue we have no need for Free Speech either, since that same government will tell us what we should know, say, believe.
Logged
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2017, 08:32:13 pm »
Quote from: truth_seeker on June 22, 2017, 08:16:07 pm
I assume some would similarly now argue we have no need for Free Speech either, since that same government will tell us what we should know, say, believe.

Exactly, although they will cleverly couch it in language that sounds benign and beneficial and promotes 'equality' and brotherhood among all.
Logged
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,673
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: LA Times: The case for restricting ‘hate-speech’
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2017, 10:26:42 pm »
Does that mean they want to shut down CNN?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »