Accusing Steven Crowder Of 'Hate Speech' Damages Legitimacy Of Intellectual Dissent

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
First, the accusation of "hate speech" is not an intellectual or political dissent to a speaker’s point of view, but rather a fallacious attempt to undermine an individual’s credibility without responding to the ideas they espouse

which is why Progressives Use this attack ..... they don't have to respond with facts


This charge has routinely been leveled at conservative commentators nationwide in attempt to prevent or minimize their presence on college campuses, where they offer a valuable counter-perspective to an overwhelmingly left-leaning orthodoxy in American academia. Social justice activists argue that if a certain speaker’s ideas are considered offensive or hateful, that individual’s presence should not be tolerated. Followed to its logical conclusion, this proposition manifests itself in examples of censorship, like in 2015 when, citing opposition to "hate speech" as justification, hundreds of students at Cal State University Los Angeles barricaded a lecture hall where Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro spoke, preventing many students from hearing his remarks and forcing law enforcement to sneak Mr. Shapiro and attendees into the hall through a back entrance. Another example: In 2014, Brandeis University disinvited women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and rescinded an offer to her of an honorary degree because Ms. Ali, a victim of female circumcision, speaks critically of fundamentalist Islam.

Second, and most importantly, the First Amendment extends wide-ranging protection to even disagreeable speech. This was very recently reaffirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in June 2017. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote summarily in his opinion: “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.” It is this last prescription that is most poignant – “free and open discussion” looks more like attending a lecture and asking a speaker a compelling question to challenge his assertions, rather than protesting his very appearance on campus.




Accusing Steven Crowder Of 'Hate Speech' Damages Legitimacy Of Intellectual Dissent
 
Top