I agree with Walter that we should default to free speech absolutism, and also with the observation that the equivalent right-coded protest and disruption would not be tolerated by the academics and activists currently pretending to care about free expression. A lib friend sent me a clip of Secretary Mayor Pete wondering where the libert…
I agree with Walter that we should default to free speech absolutism, and also with the observation that the equivalent right-coded protest and disruption would not be tolerated by the academics and activists currently pretending to care about free expression. A lib friend sent me a clip of Secretary Mayor Pete wondering where the libertarians are, and it was the most insincere crap I've seen in a while since I know he's down with the lefty orthodoxy on "misinformation." Similarly the Ivy presidents' testimony to Congress in late 23 on free speech and tolerating viewpoint diversity was great, but they obviously didn't believe it because immediately prior they were policing "harmful" views and "microaggressions."
SCOTUS has made it clear that hate speech = free speech. You can say anything in the US, as long as you are not standing with a mob in front of someone's house inciting violence (from a distance even that's ok). People can lose their jobs (or job prospects in the case of students) but the federal government cannot constitutionally abridge your right to hate speech.
People being afraid is not a cause to do away with free speech.
Read what the Biden administration said about the guy last April. They didn't see him as a peaceful protestor. He wasn't. Free speech absolutism? I'm pretty close to it. Violation of the law is something else.
I agree with Walter that we should default to free speech absolutism, and also with the observation that the equivalent right-coded protest and disruption would not be tolerated by the academics and activists currently pretending to care about free expression. A lib friend sent me a clip of Secretary Mayor Pete wondering where the libertarians are, and it was the most insincere crap I've seen in a while since I know he's down with the lefty orthodoxy on "misinformation." Similarly the Ivy presidents' testimony to Congress in late 23 on free speech and tolerating viewpoint diversity was great, but they obviously didn't believe it because immediately prior they were policing "harmful" views and "microaggressions."
SCOTUS has made it clear that hate speech = free speech. You can say anything in the US, as long as you are not standing with a mob in front of someone's house inciting violence (from a distance even that's ok). People can lose their jobs (or job prospects in the case of students) but the federal government cannot constitutionally abridge your right to hate speech.
People being afraid is not a cause to do away with free speech.
Read what the Biden administration said about the guy last April. They didn't see him as a peaceful protestor. He wasn't. Free speech absolutism? I'm pretty close to it. Violation of the law is something else.