How frequently have presumably smart Americans told us that hate speech is not free speech?
Of course, such is not the situation given our First Amendment.
But in other parts of the world — especially ( and regrettably ) the West — hate speech is n’t permissible. Take the new UK report that asks,” Are racist hate speech laws being “genetized” against cultural minorities?
( The story could also be framed as “Ethnic minorities in a representative democracy must abide by the same laws as the majority”, but that would n’t check the” correct” boxes. )
Yet the head of Britain’s National Black Police Association, Andy George, concerns about this “weaponization” — that rules meant” to protect minority are in danger of being overwhelmingly used to indict them”.
The report highlights a pair of ( minority ) Brits who have been subject to hate speech charges, including an executive who tweeted a.gif of Daffy Duck tap dancing in response to a tweet about a politician “tap dancing for massa.”
The executor conceded he was” see where]the image ] may become offensive”, but added for him it was “hard to knowledge” as it was a “political critique” of the president’s views.
Mariaa Hussein, a teacher, is also being investigated and fired from her teaching position after holding a sign that read “UK Prime Minister and past home director” underneath a coconut tree. The palm represents how the two politicians are “brown on the outside” but “hold white racist values inside.” Both politicians are of American origin.
She said while some of her language “may be pejorative, that does n’t make it racist” — unlike some of the things the prime minister and home secretary have said. She insisted hers was a political speech.
The NBPA’s George said the palm should not be” seen in the same approach” as the n- phrase or another “highly unpleasant” cultural terms. However, his organization believes hate conversation regulations are “becoming to political to police”.
Less: Michigan ‘ hate speech ‘ bill could criminalize traditional opinion
If these were being investigated in the United States, they would be laughed out of court unless the judge was a far-left extreme.
Liberals on U.S. campuses today believe that their bigoted speech is not racist, but that their political and cultural competitors are. This is the same as this Brit execute and Ms. Hussein.
Everything has brought this double standard to the forefront more than the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The same individuals who want basically anything that offends them to be banned and/or canceled have had little to no compunctions when making the most hateful anti-Jewish/antisemitic remarks during pro-Hamas protests.
Really, how often have we read about slim- tanned liberals wanting somebody investigated/sanctioned/fired for some benign word or statement? For example, take a look at The College Fix’s Cancel Culture Database.
Heck, the Harvard Crimson newspaper table late last year put out an editor ripping women’s rights advocate Riley Gaines as” transphobic”, but did notice it respects the First Amendment. Therefore it added that Gaines ‘ views “do not amount to a get-out of jail- completely card for nasty rhetoric.” What?
Nothing at the time was said by the panel on the blatant cruel language used by the anti-Israel protesters.
Is theft really that bad, according to a recent University of Washington scholar op-ed? because — you guessed it — the cause du day is a good/correct/just one: the consequently- called independence for” Palestine”.
The hypocrisy has exploded to the point where even the liberal Vox.com ran an article with the headline” Protecting dramatic opposition requires tolerating right-wing speech.”
The student code of conduct was established at Columbia two years ago, and it is now administered by its Columbia Center for Student Success and Intervention ( CSSI). It seeks to” protect individuals from discrimination and encourage the principles of ‘ Justice, Equity, Diversity &, Inclusion.'”
And — wonder! The CSSI uses a “broader concept of unfair statement than the Rules of University Conduct or national civil rights law, while providing the accused with some legal safeguards.” In addition, the CSSI provides” no right to counsel, bars the accused from making opening or closing statements, and allows the administration to add new charges in the middle of the process”.
Guess what: Columbia used the CSSI process to go after anti- Israel student activists over the last few months, and they, as well as many of their faculty allies, did n’t like it.
Another surprise is revealed by Columbia Law Professor David Posen, who stated that there is now” a growing appreciation” on campus for the notion that we should support a wide range of uncomfortable speech that does n’t pose a direct and present threat or target specific individuals.
Is n’t that just special.
Vox’s Eric Levitz asks” In light of these]current anti- Israel speech ] developments, should students concerned with social justice rethink their previous skepticism of free speech norms, for the sake of better protecting radical dissent? His response:” I think the answer is yes.”
Just skip the first two words, buddy.
MORE: ‘ Hate speech’ should be censored online: NYU media professor
IMAGE: Sam Graham/Flickr.com
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.