From an article on the Berkeley riots over a scheduled campus appearance by a conservative speaker:
But UC Berkeley sophomore Jonathan Gow, 19, rejected Yiannopoulos’ insistence that free speech took a hit.
“The whole reason we’re here is for free speech,” Gow said. “Milo’s hate speech is not allowed here. When it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down.”
Actually, in a society that classifies flag burning and soaking crucifixes in urine as “speech,” and free speech, at that, one could conceivably make this argument. But no further steps need be taken before political murder qualifies as constitutionally-protected free speech as well. I’ll go out on a limb and say that is bad. If a thing means everything, then it means nothing at all.
I wonder who decides what is “free” speech and what is “hate” speech. Do the anarchists clime the mountain and consult some omnipotent left wing Pythia for the answer?
Whatever they don’t like is hate speech, and whatever they like, no matter how stupid or nonsensical is hate speech. Doesn’t have to make sense, as long as they feel good about it.
Definition is easy. Free speech is what I say, Hate speech is what you say. Can’t get more simple than that!
“I’m all about free speech. So shut up!”
I find it so ironic that their version of “Free Speech” is “Say only what I want to hear, and do not challenge me”. That is the weapon of the ruling party in EVERY country which oppresses it’s people to the point of fear, submission, and servitude.
“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
– Justice Felix Frankfurter