May 8, 2015

"I keep hearing about a supposed 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, 'This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech.'"

Eugene Volokh wants to get everybody up to speed on the actual case law.

125 comments:

MadisonMan said...

Speech you don't want to hear is exactly the most important speech that should be Constitutionally protected.

The Godfather said...

People seem to use the term "hate speech" to mean speech that they hate.

rhhardin said...

It's not going to matter. Leftists are idiots and in charge.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Chris Cuomo was confusing it with "fighting words", which is ALSO NOT THE SAME THING AS "HATE SPEECH" except in Canada.

rhhardin said...

Any Supreme Court decision on the matter will be 5-4 with Kennedy the swing vote.

Gays will be against it.

sinz52 said...

What liberals usually mean is, they want to extend the legal concept of "protected class" to also include protection from criticism of that class.

Today, protected classes include blacks, for example. Hence, liberals want to ban all claims that blacks might be either genetically or culturally inferior to whites. (I regard such claims as nonsense, but I don't like a priori restraints on nonsense.)

That's why liberals have no problem with virulent condemnations of Christianity or Christians (who they consider the majority or the establishment), but object strongly when a minority group is criticized.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Unfortunately, I fear that Professor Volokh may well have lost his intended audience the split-second he used the word "coextensive."

Rusty said...

Fuckin' A right, Eugene.

Ralph Hyatt said...

This is why you hear supporters of free speech being referred to a "free speech absolutists."

This insistence on free speech, no matter what, is fanatical. It leads to disharmony and no one wants a disharmonious society after all.

Be a good fellow and accept the consensus. After all, those Muslim chaps might get a bit out of sorts, whispers: and you know how that might end up.

sinz52 said...

What liberals want--though they rarely put it this way--is to extend the affirmative-action concept of "protected classes" to include protection from criticism of those classes.


The new liberal view of freedom of speech is that you don't have the freedom to criticize a protected class.

That's why they have no problem with bitter and even virulent condemnations of white Christians, but will never, ever make fun of black Christians.

Blacks are a protected class; white Christians are not.

Sebastian said...

"Eugene Volokh wants to get everybody up to speed on the actual case law."

I respect him, but it's beside the point. Progs know the "case law." They reject it. They have read the First Amendment. They just don't want it to mean what EV says it means.

If they can fabricate a constitutional right to abortion or SSM, surely they can carve out a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.

Americans have been mean to Muslims long enough, starting with Thomas Jefferson and Stephen Decatur. Time to mend our ways.

traditionalguy said...

We face a world ruled by institutional lying that declares the only crime is speaking the truth in public.

The ugly truth about big institutions based on big lies is what is at stake.

Large populations such as the Muslims and the Roman Catholics, who operate under the Roman Empire's hierachy approach, need to be insulated by law from the free speech of free Americans, especially the ones who dare to speak the truth so freely on the Internet.

It seems odd that the new invention of he internet is attracting censorship from on high, but is the last stronghold for freedom.

The Drill SGT said...

The nut graf was the last one.

But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice.

Paul Ciotti said...

Colleges have been banning hate speech for so long with speech codes that most Americans now believe there is a category of speech called hate speech and furthermore it is illegal.

The invention of a category of speech called hate speech was a brilliant tactical maneuver by progressives. It allows them to pose as defenders of free speech will still censoring everything they don't like.

dreams said...

I never heard any talk about hate speech when the liberals trashed Sarah Palin and her family.

Fabi said...

Only dangerous fanatics could be against common sense speech control.

/leftist

Drago said...

Ralph Hyatt: "This is why you hear supporters of free speech being referred to a "free speech absolutists."

Yep.

And next up in the lefts never ending campaign for the slur that will shut down all rhetorical opposition and protect the integrity of the leftist bubble: "Hate Speech Denialists!!"

Drago said...

dreams: "I never heard any talk about hate speech when the liberals trashed Sarah Palin and her family"

It's Fen's Law.

All the way down.

Robert Cook said...

There should be no "hate speech" (or "fighting words") exceptions to free speech; any legal restrictions on speech so designated is unconstitutional.

There should also be no special designation for crimes as "hate crimes;" that is, where a crime has enhanced sentencing parameters where it is designated a "hate crime," as opposed to the sentencing for that same crime where it lacks the designation of "hate crime."

It's all thought-crime...punishment for what one thinks.

Sebastian said...

"they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice."

They "should" but they won't. Studied ambiguity may not "suffice" for EV but serves Prog power just fine. They've been practicing at US colleges.

This is all very nice and reasonable of EV but also beside the point.

Mike said...

Amazed that this has to be said at all. With a kleptocratic avaricious congenital liar running for president, a lot of "no shit" statements we never thought we'd see the need to explain will be printed.

Mike said...

Promoting communism is hate speech, right?

Mike said...

I agree completely with Robert Cook just above here. Thought crime should stay in the realm of fiction not jurisprudence.

The Drill SGT said...

what Cookie said

clint said...

"MadisonMan said...
Speech you don't want to hear is exactly the most important speech that should be Constitutionally protected."

Exactly.

Inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

And the "freedom" to do what the people in charge tell you to do is pretty self-evidently not freedom at all.

The Drill SGT said...

Robert Cook said...
5/8/15, 11:26 AM


Cookie demonstrates that he isn't a complete idiot :)

and more of a classic Liberal than a Leftist.

I'm trying to give complements Cookie. work with me :)

n.n said...

Free Speech has been weaponized by progressive liberals so that it may be exploited to create political, economic, and social leverage.

Æthelflæd said...

I always enjoy the rare planetary alignments when R. Cook makes me shout "Hoorah!" in my computer chair.

dhagood said...

well said cookie.

traditionalguy said...

Fear of the Ruler is an ever present cultivated fear that posits default positions for the group think. Free Speech moves those boundaries with new ideas. So it is inherently dangerous to the Ruler and his wealthy cronies.

Historic speakers who dared it often were betrayed and burned alive such as Jan Hus in Bohemia. But that speech if written down lives on, and 100 years later a German monk reads it and starts the Reformation.

And that time Jesuit military murder squads never did catch Martin Luther who lived a full and happy life with a family with the reformed nun he married. But Jan Hus gets the credit for courage to face the evil.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

When Pussy Riot offends Christians, Pussy Riot are heroines (feminist heroines, even).

When Pamela Gellar offends Muslims, she's a hate monger and should be condemned.

Lesson?

Browndog said...

Reading the Constitution is an exercise in futility for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact it's been drummed into our heads as to what it says..

Like, I know the "separation of Church and State" clause, and the "you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater" clause are somewhere in the Happiness Article.

I'm off to finish reading The Wells Report....if he finds it's more probable than not that Brady ever engaged in hate speech. I suspect the Commissioner will have to turn over the findings to the DOJ

traditionalguy said...

Cookie may be a Marxist thinker, but he is our honest thinking Marxist.

tim maguire said...

While I can believe that many people from other countries don't understand the First Amendment, Americans do. For American liberals, the problem is not ignorance, it's disinterest. They don't care what the First Amendment does and does not protect, they want the laws they want. Period.

JSD said...

I remember ACT UP disrupting church services at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 with their “die in” protests. Most thought it was tasteless, but now it’s viewed as a heroic act of free speech.

Drago said...

Ouch. Cookie and I are in agreement?

I wonder which of us is more upset?

Politics. Bedfellows. Strange.

Wow, that did not come out as I hoped it might.....

And it's just fodder for Laslo.

Fabi said...

Well said, Cook.

Anonymous said...

Butting in because I notice that TraditionalMoron not only outs himself as a historically challenged moron, that's normal for him, but also, and quite openly, as a nazi.
"roman catholics ... need to be insulated by law from the free speech of free Americans".

Michael K said...

Cookie, I take back everything I said about you and what I thought.

YoungHegelian said...

@Phil,

"Forget about it, Phil. It's TradGuyTown....."

Anonymous said...

"I remember ACT UP disrupting church services at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 with their “die in” protests. Most thought it was tasteless, but now it’s viewed as a heroic act of free speech."
***************

It was not. It was a classic act of trespassing on private property.

Larry J said...

Should this "hate speech" nonsense result in law, leftists should be wary of what they unleash. There's a saying in the military that "tracers work both ways", meaning that they allow the shooter to see where the bullets are going but they also reveal the shooter's location. You want hate speech charges, what about the racist hate speech at the "white privilege" conferences or the man-hating misandry spewed by feminists? Bring them up on charges and let them taste their own medicine.

Anonymous said...

"Should this "hate speech" nonsense result in law, leftists should be wary of what they unleash"

I don't think so. As long as the left sets the agenda they have nothing to fear.
Look at the UK, full of thought-crime laws, and see what a Choudary gets away with.

sparrow said...

You would think so Larry but no conservative politician would ever have the guts to prosecute left wing hate speech.

Dan Hossley said...

Unfortunately, the lefties read Orwell's 1984 and took it to be prescriptive not proscriptive. It's the simple mistakes that are costly.

CWJ said...

Paul Ciotti wrote -

"The invention of a category of speech called hate speech was a brilliant tactical maneuver by progressives. It allows them to pose as defenders of free speech will still censoring everything they don't like."

Indeed! Hate Crime was the camel's nose under the tent. If hate can be criminal, why should hate speech be protected.

Yes, actual statutory crimes were used as the armature upon which to layer hate crimes, but once clothed, hate and crime became indistinguishable by much of lay society.. Indeed, I wonder how much of the legal profession can any longer make the distinction?

Big Mike said...

Hey, I'm all in favor of censoring hate speech. As long as I get to be the one who decides when someone has crossed the line into hate speech.

Rick said...

Larry J said...
You want hate speech charges, what about the racist hate speech at the "white privilege" conferences or the man-hating misandry spewed by feminists? Bring them up on charges and let them taste their own medicine.


The left doesn't worry about this any more than they worry about race preferences violating equal protection. They control most of our institutions, including the legal system, and trust that control to ensure they are largely protected.

You can see this in the current "rape culture"-hysteria driven "affirmative consent" rules, whereby most sexual contact is defined as sexual assault. The left relies on the fact that men are less likely to make sexual assault allegations in cases most people wouldn't understand as assault and when they do so those implementing the process will simply discriminate. This expectation seems well founded:

McLeod’s lawyer asked [Duke Dean Sue] Wasiolek what happened if both students were drunk. In that case, presumably, “they have raped each other and are subject to expulsion.” Not so, stated Wasiolek: “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2014/05/duke_grossly_unfair_again_is_b/

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Larry J said...

You want hate speech charges, what about the racist hate speech at the "white privilege" conferences or the man-hating misandry spewed by feminists? Bring them up on charges and let them taste their own medicine.

That's what doublespeak is for. Never forget, leftists see 1984 ( and Atlas Shrugged ) as how-to books.

traditionalguy said...

Marx was a collectivist that postulated a Soviet state that saved men from freedom by instructing them howto pretend that the state was all that men need, or we will kill you.

To do this Marxism became an intellectual movement that arranges to take control over ideas spoken on newspapers, on TV, on radio and on all schools books and common core courses, and on Church preaching.

It has spent the last 30 years indoctrinating the world on a Disaster called the Global Warming ruse.

Since warming does not exist, all speech must pretend it is a moral issue that it might happen some day.

A new world government and its wholey owned religion wants to control speech to focus on a necessary UN Government which will be an Internet Free Space.

Thus Cookie's Marxism returns, and everyone seems to want it provided they can get the most loot.

Michael said...

Is there a trigger warning we can sticker the Constitution with?

tim in vermont said...

Utopians of all kinds hate free speech. Muslims, who are, after all, Utopians, Marxists, Fascists, Socialists like Chavez, the whole bunch. None of them want that pesky child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Everybody hates free speech except for the liberal democrats, called conservatives here in the US. That is why they call us "Nazis."

tim in vermont said...

Unfortunately, the lefties read Orwell's 1984 and took it to be prescriptive not proscriptive. It's the simple mistakes that are costly.

And Animal Farm is the brochure!

Gusty Winds said...

Rooting against the Green Bay Packers is hate speech.

Bruce Hayden said...

I have to say that I think that this is important. Throughout the world, Islam is somewhat on the march, and much of Europe, in particular, is likely to be under Islamic control within the next half century. They are already able to threaten unbelievers into silence and/or compliance - for example, all the raped girls and women in the UK because they didn't want to upset their Muslim immigrants who were doing the raping. And, the routine anti-Semitism of much of Europe, which they should be to embarrassed to allow, after allowing 6 million Jews to die a bit over 70 years ago.

We are lucky, in that our 1st Amdt. prevents the sort of appeasement and subordination that much of the left would love to force us to do, in the name of preventing "hate speech", and not punching down. Etc. The left doesn't want free speech because they fear Islam, and because they want to be able to prevent us from saying anything adverse to what they, the left, want us to do and believe.

The Drill SGT said...

Gusty Winds said...
Rooting against the Green Bay Packers is hate speech.


Or perhaps traitorous if you live in the Cheese state.

James Pawlak said...

The places, in the USA, where free speech is most abused, are the public "academic freedom" universities.

That attack on free speech is paralleled by like attacks on the Fourth and Second Amendments by overpaid, over-protected and tyrannical school administrators.

garage mahal said...

I'm all for free speech for conservatives. AFTER they are in the camps!

Bruce Hayden said...

That is why they call us "Nazis."

I always loved the fact that the left uses techniques developed and used by Marxists, Fascists, Socialists, etc., and part of that is calling those who disagree with them "Nazis", which are, of course, a branch of fascism, which, is a branch of socialism.

lgv said...

Robert Cook:

"There should also be no special designation for crimes as "hate crimes;" that is, where a crime has enhanced sentencing parameters where it is designated a "hate crime," as opposed to the sentencing for that same crime where it lacks the designation of "hate crime.""

Agreed. Ten years for assault. Twenty years if the assault was a hate crime. So, maybe 15 years if it is only a thoroughly dislike, but not like full out hate crime.

I am constantly spewing forth thoroughly dislike speech. I would hate to cross the line into hate speech, especially because no one knows where the line is. (unlike the red line in Syria)

rhhardin said...

I say ban both hate speech and love speech.

They're both obsession speech.

Fabi said...

Garage goes all-in for irony fail.

MadisonMan said...

Not so, stated Wasiolek: “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

Because all women are delicate little flowers that must be protected by The Patriarchy, in this case Duke University.

The Drill SGT said...

.garage mahal said...
I'm all for free speech for conservatives. AFTER they are in the camps!


LOL, that was a laugh, Garage...

Fernandinande said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
When Pussy Riot offends Christians, Pussy Riot are heroines (feminist heroines, even).
When Pamela Gellar offends Muslims, she's a hate monger and should be condemned.

Lesson?


"Free Speech vs. Hate Speech vs. Who/Whom Speech"
"Promoting hoaxes about straight white male gang rapists, for example, is, by definition, social justice speech, not hate speech. In contrast, writing a Harvard doctoral dissertation on psychometrics and immigration is, by definition, hate speech."

Coupe said...

If you can burn a flag, nothing else is sacred.

Wiki: "Archie mocks the British and refers to England as a "fag country". He also refers to Germans as "Krauts", the Irish as "Micks", the Japanese as "Japs", the Italians as "Dagos", the Chinese as "Chinks", Polish people as "Polacks," Hispanics or Latinos as "Spics," and Jewish people as "Hebes." He often uses the words "colored", "jungle bunnies" or "spade" in reference to African-Americans."

Put that in your federal trial transcript, and smoke it.

William Chadwick said...

Probably others have pointed this out before, but the term "hate speech"--like "liberal" and "fascist"--has become so bastardized over the course of the late 20th and early 21st century that it is almost what Tom Wolfe once referred to as a "vacuum word"--a word that pretty much means whatever meaning the speaker or writer injects it with. "Hate speech" seems to mean "whatever speech 'liberal' State-fellators hate."

mikee said...

People trying to ban speech as "hate speech" are rebranding a "heckler's veto," which has a long history of being rejected by the Supreme Court.

Condemning speech as "triggers" is the same thing, except that some people actually do experience angst of previous trauma when reminded of it. Still, that attempt to censor speech because of the recipient's perception has the whole concept of free speech backwards.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
There should be no "hate speech" (or "fighting words") exceptions to free speech; any legal restrictions on speech so designated is unconstitutional.

There should also be no special designation for crimes as "hate crimes;" that is, where a crime has enhanced sentencing parameters where it is designated a "hate crime," as opposed to the sentencing for that same crime where it lacks the designation of "hate crime."

It's all thought-crime...punishment for what one thinks.


Wow. I agree with every word.

Fen said...

"Garage goes all-in for irony fail."

Worse, its the only play he could run.

tim in vermont said...

Wow. I agree with every word.

I know, right?

DanTheMan said...

>no exceptions to free speech; any legal restrictions on speech so designated is unconstitutional.

I'd like to hop on the CookieLove bandwagon, but I have to ask...
What about slander, or outright lying?
What would be the remedy under this model for someone standing on the corner yelling "Robert Cook is a child molester!!!"
or inciting a riot, or falsely yelling "Fire!" in .. well, you know where...

Absolutism is fine in theory, but usually unworkable in practice.

Rusty said...

Absolutism is fine in theory, but usually unworkable in practice.

It's very workable. You forget. It ends at the tip of your nose.
If you want to censor what you say not because you may be sued for slanderbut because you might offend,well then it sucks to be you
, dickhead.

William said...

Could one of the many Islamic scholars here enlighten me as to which is a worse offense against the Prophet: drawing a cartoon of Mohammed or having a gay marriage. I just don't know, but this I do know: if some Muslim fanatic shot up a gay wedding, the most conspicuous and fervent Islamophobes would be found on the left. So long as Muslims (in the west) restrict their summary executions to Jews, cartoonists, and soldiers, the left will be tolerant of their predations......I'm no sure how I feel about Pamela Geller, but she's a brave woman. Salman Rushdie went not hiding and spoke some weaselly words about Islam, but Ms. Geller didn't hide and didn't hedge her words. She's a brave soul.

JAORE said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
There should be no "hate speech" (or "fighting words") exceptions to free speech; any legal restrictions on speech so designated is unconstitutional.

There should also be no special designation for crimes as "hate crimes;" that is, where a crime has enhanced sentencing parameters where it is designated a "hate crime," as opposed to the sentencing for that same crime where it lacks the designation of "hate crime."

It's all thought-crime...punishment for what one thinks.

Wow. I agree with every word.

I not only agree with every word, but I admire the clarity of the message.

Bob R said...

Buying the Volokh Conspiracy was the thing that gave me hope that Bezos knew what he was doing buying the Post. It's a long way to go, but Eugene is the smartest guy they have writing for the paper. (Not much of an insult to any of the other writers.)

Freeman Hunt said...

Which founding father wrote this?

"Wherein we have provided for the protection of the natural rights of men to give voice to their ideas and criticisms, however unpopular among their countrymen, we intend by no means to confer on them a false right to express those sentiments which others may deem mean or hateful in manner and which may thus cause injury to the placidity of listeners' minds."

Or which one was it that said this?

"It is the natural right of man to possess freedom of thought and therefore speech, this right reaching its natural limit prior to speech one might characterize as 'hate.'"

Too bad they didn't have Play-Doh and Paddington Bear. Their safe space contained only a pile of mud, a fluff of cotton, and a monkey imported by Danish traders and put to entertainment after being taught the rudiments of dance.

The Godfather said...

I'm old enough to remember the "McCarthy Era", that is, when leftist views were attacked from the Right. Liberals argued that free speech protected the right of leftists to spout unpopular opinions. It seems that most of those who promote the notion of "hate crimes" and demand "trigger warnings" can't imagine that their own ideas would ever be considered unacceptable.

But they can.

It helps to have been in the minority from time to time.

The leftists who try to stifle speech that they disagree with ("hate speech") need to remember that the day may come (again) that leftist speech is regarded as "hateful".

"They came for the speakers of 'hate' but I wasn't 'hateful', so I did nothing."

DanTheMan said...

Rusty,
Instead of name-calling, could you answer the question I posed?
You seem to imply that one could be sued for slander. If so, then right of speech is not absolute, as you are punishing certain types of speech, yes?

Jason said...

Slander's a civil action - not criminal.

And truth is an absolute defense to defamation. But if you lie, you must simply compensate the victim for any damages incurred as a result of your maliciousness and/or carelessness.

i.e., compensation, not punishment.

mtrobertsattorney said...

Free speech is a right; prudence is a virtue. Pam Geller lacks the virtue of prudence.

Fabi said...

@mrrobertsattorney: So what?

Jason said...

Here's my message for mtrobertsattorney: Go fuck yourself."

How's that for prudence?




Jason said...

God save us from all these fair-weather patriots who love their invitations to the right parties and their reputation for being 'thoughtful' or 'prudent' or 'reasonable' more than they love liberty.


Those fuckers will excuse away anything. Tyrants have always relied on them.

sean said...

It's strange to me that law profs would blog about this issue, when the biggest offenders are on university campuses. People with genuine courage and commitment to the Constitution would have teach-ins on campus. Then again, people with genuine courage and commitment to the Constitution don't generally become law professors.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find a law professor challenging his or her college's diversity administrators. I won't hold my breath.

befinne said...

If your religion prohibits depictions of your religion's founder, don't depict him. Nothing to do with me. Oh, and if I draw him, you still don't get to kill me. Disappointing to a caveman, I know. C'est la vie.

Francisco D said...

As a free speech absolutist, I appreciate that the usual leftist suspects on this site are on board. Even Garage made sort of a funny comment, at least for him.

I am extremely annoyed at those on the left and right (e.g., BOR) who blame Pamela Geller for inciting violence by "taunting" Islamacists. Conservatives and Libertarians get taunted far more. Does that give us justification to ... ?

The Drill SGT said...

sean said...
Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find a law professor challenging his or her college's diversity administrators. I won't hold my breath.


Challenge accepted. UCLA Law school Prof Richard Sander, for ground breaking analysis and legal challenges to his own University and the California bar Assoc on the issue of "Law School Mismatch", e.g.,

Whether giving preference to under qualified minorities in the better law schools decreases their chances of graduating and actually, you know, becoming lawyers rather than ending up with $150k of debt, when if they had gone to a school matching their LSAT, they'd be out in the community actually being minority lawyers...

AReasonableMan said...

Robert Cook said...
There should be no "hate speech" (or "fighting words") exceptions to free speech; any legal restrictions on speech so designated is unconstitutional.

There should also be no special designation for crimes as "hate crimes;" that is, where a crime has enhanced sentencing parameters where it is designated a "hate crime," as opposed to the sentencing for that same crime where it lacks the designation of "hate crime."


I agree, but then I am a white male and the only time I am subject to hate speech is when I visit here.

Many of these laws, both here and in Europe, had their origin in efforts to stamp out antisemitism. Once the ball got rolling, however, pretty much everyone can claim to be subject to some form of hate, even us white male moderates.

William said...

The criticism that Pamela Geller is a publicity seeker is to some extent justified. However, when she steps into the spotlight she becomes an illuminated target for every psycho Islamacist in the world. It's far more an act of courage than the act of a publicity hound......I wish all the "yes, but" free speech advocates would give due respect to an act that is far braver and purer than that of Snowden.

Phil 3:14 said...

ARM,
You never fail to disappoint.

RichardJohnson said...

That there should be free speech doesn't mean that speech should be free of consequences. There was a tenant in an HOA who had made a number of false accusations in reports to police in attempts to get people arrested. He often made these police reports when drunk.

As police are experienced in deciding which complaints merit arrests and which do not, none of his complaints resulted in arrests. After one such call to police, which resulted in two policemen talking to this tenant for an hour and a half, the police told the tenant to "sleep it off."

The tenant got enough people pissed off at him that the HOA attorney wrote a letter to the tenant's landlord, threatening fines if the tenant remained. Within two weeks the tenant was gone.

Fabi said...

Speech that entails consequences is not free speech. Think about that, please. If you mean social consequences, e.g., shunning, then okay; but if you mean legal or physical consequences, then I disagree.

sean said...

Drill Sgt: I meant a law professor who spoke publicly on campus, not one who published articles. The former would take real courage.

Fen said...

I not only agree with every word, but I admire the clarity of the message.

Yah me too, but lets not go overboard. This is like being astonished a feeb managed to tie his shoelaces.

Wait and see. Maybe next week he'll admit that people have a right to self-defense...

The Drill SGT said...

sean said...
Drill Sgt: I meant a law professor who spoke publicly on campus, not one who published articles. The former would take real courage.


Sueing your own Law School, the Regents and the state bar isn't courage?

Fen said...

AReasonableMan: I am a white male and the only time I am subject to hate speech is when I visit here

Oh bullshit. You're the typical Social Justice Warrior - you come in here and insult people, and when they insult you back you whine about "hate speech".

Grow a pair.

Fabi said...

Interesting that ARM claims to be a moderate, but twice in one post - twice! - mentions that he's a white male. Only the hard left practices identity politics on that level. It's ingrained in his socio-economic psyche.

AReasonableMan said...

Fen said...
You're the typical Social Justice Warrior - you come in here and insult people, and when they insult you back you whine about "hate speech".


Good double effort, incorporating both a ridiculous claim as well as being completely humorless. Keep up the good work.


Jason said...

Only a raving frigging loon can at once admit that European speech codes were intended to stamp out anti-Semitism without immediately observing that (SURPRISE!) speech codes were a miserable failure at stamping out anti-Semitism.

AReasonableMan said...

Jason said...
Only a raving frigging loon can at once admit that European speech codes were intended to stamp out anti-Semitism without immediately observing that (SURPRISE!) speech codes were a miserable failure at stamping out anti-Semitism.


Only someone with very poor reading comprehension could imagine that I think they were a success.

Very, very poor comprehension.

But thank you for validating one of my points.

William said...

The left is against anti-semitism as practiced by low class skinheads and upper class country club types. They have a far more nuanced approach to Anti semitism as practiced by Palestinian terrorists, third world nationalists, and left wing academics. It's very complicated, and you need a scorecard to sort it all out. Does the Mufti of Jerusalem lose points for being a Nazi supporter? I understand the. Ba'ath Party modeled itself after the Nazi Party. So far as I can remember, I can't recall anyone on the left using hat for an argument against Saddam or Assad.

Rusty said...

DanTheMan said...
Rusty,
Instead of name-calling, could you answer the question I posed?
You seem to imply that one could be sued for slander. If so, then right of speech is not absolute, as you are punishing certain types of speech, yes?


I was trying to make a point.
Lessee if you can get this. Slander isn't free speech because by doing so you deny the other person something. You steal their reputation. That is the tip of your nose. However calling you a dickhead isn't slander. It's just rude. I'm perfectly free to be rude. Absolutely. As long as I do not deprive you of your right. I can pretty mush say whatever I fucking well want to anybody I want and draw cartoons of their make believe prophets as well.Eat a dick Mohammed.

RecChief said...

is this anything like "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" (until it's not)?

Big Mike said...

Now see, if I was in charge of deciding what was hate speech and what was not, a proposition that any reasonable group of Americans would unanimously agree to support, then ARM and garage would be off to jail and all would be well in the world.

AReasonableMan said...

Big Mike said...
if I was in charge ... ARM and garage would be off to jail.


Fascist!!!

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
us white male moderates.


It's a strange world where someone whose only purpose is attacking others thinks that's the behavior of a moderate. It's also sad that on the political left it might be true.

AReasonableMan said...

Rick, Rick, Rick, we are having a Kumbaya moment here at the Althouse blog. Everyone agrees with Robert Cook. You're harshing the mellow.

All us white men fucking hate hate laws.



Terry said...

I'm a Christian from a pretty middle-of-the-road denomination. Mohammad, if he really existed, had to have been a false prophet. Christ was the fulfillment of all prophesies, the alpha and the omega, the living Word of God. No need for prophets after Christ. It would be blasphemous to believe that Mohammad was the prophet of God.
I wonder if anyone has ever asked rick Warren if he thought it was possible for a Christian to believe that Mohammad was really a prophet? That there was a path to God that did not go through Christ or through the old covenant of the Jews?

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
we are having a Kumbaya moment here at the Althouse blog


Were having one, not are. You showed up and intentionally ended it by blaming others for hate speech.

AReasonableMan said...

Blogger Rick said...
You showed up and intentionally ended it by blaming others for hate speech.


It's one humorless bunch we have up here tonight. Did I mention we added 223K jobs last quarter and the Dow was up 267 points? Today was a good day.


Freeman Hunt said...

There eas that time that George Washington began a speech with, "Before I commence my remarks, I should like to issue forth a trigger warning."

Fen said...

Ah yes, the usual "guys I was only joking" bs, coupled with a bogus ("saved") jobs report that will be downgraded again when no one is looking.

Anyone else notice how they keep publishing "just swell" numbers that almost always have to be corrected downward?

Alex said...

Robert Cook - you realize that you are a very tiny minority within the leftist camp on this? Visit any university all their speech codes, it's positively chilling. Or when any conservative is invited to make a speech at a college and gets shouted down by leftist protesters. I guess their free speech trumps other peoples' free speech.

Alex said...

ARM - Lowest labor force participation rate in 40 years. You can cherry pick numbers all you want, but the economic fundamentals are trash at this point for the majority of people.

Terry said...

Alex wrote: "Lowest labor force participation rate in 40 years."

Most MSM journos -- aka Leftists -- didn't notice that Obama wanted to bring the US economy back to the pre-Reagan days. Not the dot-com boom days of Clinton, but the Carter economy.
I was 20 years old in 1980. I know what "pre-Reagan" means. These days Obama seems to want to put various Mayor Dinkins in charge of America's greatest cities.
I weep for my country.

tim in vermont said...

All us white men fucking hate hate laws. - ARM

Well, fewer of them would me fewer hassles of black men, for example, for selling "loosies." But since you are a collectivist who believes in the supremacy of the state over its citizens, I can see how you love laws enough to defend, for example, thought crime laws in this case, with a sarcastic comment. After all, wrong thinking is the biggest problem in this world.

Rick said...

AReasonableMan said...
It's one humorless bunch we have up here tonight.


Probably has something to do with Jews, right?

The Drill SGT said...

Alex said...
Robert Cook - you realize that you are a very tiny minority within the leftist camp on this?


I try to hold out hope for cookie. I think you are seeing a bit of old fashioned Liberal show through his Leftist skin :)

Although on the matter of NSA, I think some of his views might be Liberal or Libertarian...

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Blogger Rick said...
You showed up and intentionally ended it by blaming others for hate speech.

It's one humorless bunch we have up here tonight. Did I mention we added 223K jobs last quarter and the Dow was up 267 points? Today was a good day.

But economic growth in the first quarter?
.02 %
Don't quit your day job, there sparkey.
You may not get another one.

Big Mike said...

@ARM, nothing personal. I just believe in "do unto others before they do unto you."

Oh, and there's something smoky about that 223K jobs added. It included 56K new jobs in the health sector, but I have been reading about hospitals closing down (which is being blamed on Obamacare, of course, but I'll reserve judgment on that point for now). Hospitals closing plus job growth in the healthcare sector doesn't make complete sense to me. Possibly it's on the up and up, but ever since this administration took office we've been fed a diet of rosy economic news followed weeks or months later by restatements and corrections. And these restatements and corrections always go in the same direction, downwards. Sometimes quite far downwards.

AReasonableMan said...

Big Mike said...
nothing personal.


I guess the Nazis didn't mean it 'personally' when they advocated exterminating Jews either.

Largo said...

I concur with the Cook concurrence!

sean said...

Drill Sgt.: Fair enough. Suing your own college to challenge its affirmative actions is certainly more courage than would ever be displayed by Althouse or any of the Conspirators, all of whom take good care to stay on the politically correct of the line enforced by their lawprof colleagues. It doesn't alter my basic point, which is that it's funny that lawprofs feel compelled to pontificate about evil to the wide world, rather than confronting it in their own institutions, which would be much more difficult and unpleasnt.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
Big Mike said...
nothing personal.

I guess the Nazis didn't mean it 'personally' when they advocated exterminating Jews either.


Aw.
Need a hug?

Call your mom.