The difference between then and now? Many of the ideas currently being protected by free speech rights run contrary to progressive ideology. Over the last 13 years, the Supreme Court “has been far more likely to embrace free-speech arguments concerning conservative speech than liberal speech,” the Times said.
You're allowed to deny the Holocaust in the United States, you're not allowed to deny the Holocaust in Europe There's a lot more free speech in the United States, but we're becoming because the left loves Europe more like Europe Hey, they ban hate speech will do it too and what's hate speech? Whatever we don't agree with That's all it means. That is all it means
I really can't emphasize this enough. We must protect free speech, and free speech only matters, its only relevant when its someone you don't like saying something you don't like, because obviously free speech that you like, its easy.
I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic and anything that results in the suppression of free speech.
One of the fundamental rights this country is founded on was freedom of speech, and we have a long tradition of nonviolent, peaceful protest. Those who exercise the right to peacefully express themselves should not be demonized or ostracized.
I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
In reading through the New York Times piece it becomes abundantly clear that many liberals really never cared about “free speech” as such, but rather sought protection specifically for progressive ideas and behaviors. As soon as conservatives started demanding the same protections for their speech, it no longer seemed like such a good idea.
Speech does not need to be intelligent or compelling to be worthy of protection.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, goes further still, declaring that free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice because it is now being used to defend ideas she finds distressing. “Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” writes MacKinnon, who teaches such courses as “Evolution of Gender Crimes” and “Sex Equality.”
One law professor at Georgetown, Louis Michael Seidman, who used to defend free speech now sees his prior position as a mistake. “When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” Seidman said. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
One person's insult is another person's sincerely-held belief. That's the way free speech works. To suggest that we can shield kids from every possible offense or hurt feeling isn't just unrealistic, it's wrong. It stifles their expression – and gives them the license to do the same.