In late August, I wrote a piece telling precious Snowflakes out there that they have no right not to be offended. In it I posited that the perpetually offended want to wrap themselves in metaphorical bubble wrap in order to insulate themselves from anything that hurts their precious feelz.
Worse yet, not only are they afraid of their feelings, beliefs, and opinions being challenged, they work to destroy anyone who doesn’t toe their ideological line, and there’s nothing they won’t do to ensure that their adversaries are dehumanized and devastated.
Take for instance author Sarah Hoyt, whom the offendatrons and SJWs hate almost as much as they hate the International Lord of Hate himself, Larry Correia. Sarah is an immigrant from Portugal. She’s a self-made woman, a successful author, an absolute genius writer, and a loyal, kind, generous human being. But Sarah doesn’t bow to their ideological demands, and for this, she’s been excoriated, ridiculed, and lied about.
The Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece recently that claimed 35 percent of offendapotomi actually believe that “hate speech” is not protected by the First Amendment. What that really means is these precious cupcakes believe that anything that jams sand into their delicate hoo hahs should be illegal.
This isn’t shocking to me, frankly. Given the howler monkeys’ propensity to attempt to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with them, it’s no surprise that they would also advocate protecting their fragile vagoos with government force.
Where does this idea come from? The LA Times refers back to a May editorial in the Washington Post by constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh.
Not from thin air. While the Supreme Court hasn’t said that there is a “hate speech” exception to the 1st Amendment, it has in the past upheld some restrictions on hateful speech.
“For instance,” Volokh notes, “there is an exception for ‘fighting words’ — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements.”
Also, he notes, in the 1952 case of Beauharnais vs. Illinois the court “did … uphold a ‘group libel’ law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with ‘good motives’ and for ‘justifiable ends.’ But this too was treated by the court as just a special case of a broader 1st Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the court’s [later] restrictions on the libel exception.”
As Professor Volokh notes, “‘hate speech’ also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define ‘hate speech’ — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.”
One can certainly argue that there should be a “hate speech” law that ensures one’s precious feelz are protected, but do we really want to wander down that dangerous path?
It is already illegal to threaten someone. It’s illegal to exercise speech that leads to direct harm to others, such as inciting riots. Yes, you can yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater if there is actually a fire, but if you’re just doing it to watch the panic as terrified theater goers trample one another in an attempt to leave the area while you chomp on popcorn, yeah… your stupid ass will be prosecuted.
But hate speech?
I engage in speech on this very blog that a lot of people find offensive. I hate bigots. I hate liars. I hate the perpetually outraged chafed labia crowd that attempts to control what I say and how I say it, and when they invariably fail, they attack like impotent, rabid chihuahuas who need to prove they can control something outside their miserable existences. I insult them every chance I get, and I find their incensed yapping entertaining. And no, I don’t care if they respond in kind, because there’s nothing they can say about me that will result in so much butthurt, that I would advocate shutting them up via government force!
Know why? Because I’m an adult, and not an insecure, whining child who needs mommy-state to protect her from insults!
I also understand that the concept of “hate speech” is a subjective one. It’s not like porn, where “you know it when you see it.” The idea of offense varies with each individual. How long before these derelicts, who right now claim hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, are hauled into court for saying or writing something insensitive that some even more perpetually offended cupcake would consider “hate speech?” How long before these bastions of tolerance and love are eaten by their own?
And if you don’t think the offendapotomi eat their own, I point you in the direction of Meg Rosoff, who committed the egregious “crime” of disagreeing with the howler monkeys about the purpose of literature.
So, no. There’s no legal basis for the “hate speech” claim. It’s simply another way for the neo-progressive whiners to shut down those with whom they disagree.
They’re bullies – nothing more, nothing less. And because they’re so impotent in real life, so unable to deal with others on an equal plane, and so intimidated by those around them, they feel their only recourse is to get the nanny state involved to protect their precious feelz.
I’d feel sorry for them, if they weren’t so shrill and so intent on bringing about the destruction of our rights.