No, seriously (via Little Green Footballs)
Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
Well, unless they cross that line where an individual or group can sue for libel.
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,†Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.â€
Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment†by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.†In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
Wunderbar! Achtung! Or, should that be in Russian?
“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,†Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.â€
Um, we do. But, what the Times and Mr. Lewis are urging is to restrict speech if it is mean.
The Times does point out that Free Speech is not absolute in the USA, and, they are correct, and it shouldn’t be. The Free Speech clause was designed to allow people to criticize the government without worrying about retribution, not so that any person can call anyone else an asshole.
Still, don’t you think the Times would enjoy muzzling those who do not agree with the progressive way of thinking?
