I have no interest in spending 5 minutes of my time watching a bunch of vapid college students inform me that "hate speech" equals "anything they disagree with".
But have interest in spending 1 minute typing out your non interest in watching it?
It's interesting (yet not surprising) that "hate speech" isn't clearly definable. Something to remember (for anyone reading) when states try to enact some sort of "hate speech" law.
Not sure about interesting. Seems pretty obvious. Like "assault weapon", legislators and other enemies of freedom like generic terms that are ill defined. The more grey space you can build into your legislation, the longer your legislative tallywacker is, allows you them spend the next ten years legislating it to define it every time some court tires to nail your jello to the wall.
It's interesting (yet not surprising) that "hate speech" isn't clearly definable.
That's because it's a stupid made up term that the Left uses to label anything they don't agree with. It's an attempt to stifle free speech and shut down discussion, and that is all. Just like screaming "RACIST!" at everything under the sun, and insisting that a guy whistling at you means you've been raped.
As you can probably see, I've lost my patience with this nonsense. At first the unreasonable fit-throwing child is amusing, but it gets old fast and that's when the brat needs his ass beat.
It's interesting because at the end, students recognized that shutting down opposing views runs contrary to their "intellectual journey". They recognize that what happened/happens at Berkley isn't right, nor did they agree with it.
At least one girl interviewed seemed to get the idea that while she may not agree with what Trump says, allowing govt. to decide what hate speech is, is a bad idea.
But again, that was all at the end...
As you can probably see, I've lost my patience with this nonsense. At first the unreasonable fit-throwing child is amusing, but it gets old fast and that's when the brat needs his ass beat.