SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (37715)4/4/2004 9:37:00 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793738
 
Regulating hate speech is hardly suppressing constitutionally protected free speech.

I think that where the universities went astray was in evolving from hate speech to discomfort speech. No reasonable person would challenge a university's policy to punish the use of the "n" word even if he considered it unconstitutional. It would be just too churlish to do so. But when the universities punished "water buffalo," they went too far.

We can reasonably, I think, stop hate speech in a school environment. But we cannot deprive folks of free speech to cater to the exquisite sensitivities of the professional victims and the insecure. That's not fair to the speakers nor healthy for society. It isn't even in the best interests of the overly sensitive, IMO. If the universities would set more reasonable standards I don't think that they would be challenged.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News