Current notion of free speech must be altered to exclude ‘hate speech’
Ever since January 6, 2021 the Left has stuck with the campaign slogan that anything with which they disagree is a “threat to democracy.”
The alleged educated class has no compunctions about lecturing us peons about these “threats,” all the while advocating alterations to long-standing civic structures and mores.
Probably the greatest change progressives want is how the U.S. deals with free speech and expression. They despise the fact that our country is unique in the protections it provides.
Leftists would love to outlaw “hate speech” like other countries do … never realizing their own speech could be next on the proverbial chopping block. (That, or they’re arrogant enough to think such will never happen.)
For example, Syracuse student paper opinion columnist Max Lancer — who’s obviously no dummy; he’s a triple major in chemistry, biochemistry and math — shows in his latest columns not only a disdain for basic civics, but a tyrannical desire to silence his ideological opposition.
Earlier this month Lancer told us Elon Musk is “democracy’s greatest threat” because the billionaire’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) is “actively polarizing the nation” and “provides [him] with an unprecedented level of influence over what people see, hear and believe.”
The fact that Musk reinstated the accounts of folks like Nick Fuentes and — gasp! — Donald Trump has “emboldened extremists [and] only heightens the presence of misinformation and bigotry,” he says.
By giving these figures a platform, Musk is not fostering free speech — he is amplifying extremism. Although freedom of speech is vitally important to a democratic system, especially with the looming presidential election, there needs to be some form of moderation regarding hate speech, disinformation and more.
The rhetoric Musk allows to thrive on his platform isn’t just controversial. It’s dangerous. By restoring their access to a platform as powerful as X, Musk is creating a space where misinformation, hate and division flourish. This is not an abstract concern. It’s a clear and present threat to the stability of democratic society.
MORE: ‘OK, boomer’? Pay the bills, support a family, then we’ll talk
Of course, the real issue here is Musk’s political leanings. It’s a safe bet Lancer has little issue with billionaire Jeff Bezos (owner of The Washington Post) and/or with the politics of Google and other tech giants, to name a few.
Need you be reminded that before Musk, the “moderation” and “disinformation”-fighting efforts of Twitter and others in Big Tech resulted in the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the ineffectiveness of the COVID “vaccine” … and much more?
Thankfully, the United States judicial system has thus far continued to oppose the Lancer view of free speech vs. hate speech, but the triple major has a remedy for that: Colleges and universities should actively challenge courts “to recognize that hate speech on college campuses is not just harmful — it’s a direct threat to the educational mission.”
Academia, Lancer says, should fight for a “reinterpretation of the law” because while free speech should be “encouraged,” it shouldn’t be “at the expense of inclusivity” (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, a University of Wisconsin-Madison survey shows almost two-thirds of college students agree with him. And nearly one-third believe violence is justified in stopping hate speech.
And does anyone believe a “reinterpretation” of the First Amendment will, in any way, benefit conservatives?
Remember the VP of the U. Illinois student government who resigned because the school would not “take a stand and prohibit hate speech”? The alleged purveyor of said hate speech: Matt Walsh, who spoke about taking on transgender ideology.
On that topic, most recently a group of parents had the cops called on them and were banished from their kids’ school activities because they wore wristbands with “XX” on them — to silently protest biological males playing against their daughters in sporting events.
Even something like urging students to ditch diversity trainings counts as hate speech for these budding tyrants. The editors of the Duke University student paper, for example, wanted hate speech “regulations” after a student pointed out that George Floyd was a drug user.
Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett recently, and likely unintentionally, gave a preview of what we’re in for should Lancer and those like him ever acquire real power:
Stacey Plaskett: The purpose of the DOJ and FBI is to “serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former president and would-be dictator Donald Trump.” pic.twitter.com/AYAZtch01v
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 25, 2024
The purpose of the DOJ and FBI, Plaskett said, is to “serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former president and would-be dictator Donald Trump.”
There you go.
MORE: Gen Z : Give up your guns, submit to the state
IMAGES: Sam Graham/Flickr.com
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.