The Dartmouth’s Zach Traynor Is Dead Wrong on Freedom Of Speech

Venerable college newspaper The Dartmouth recently published an execrable column by Zach Traynor calling on the US to ban “offensive” kinds of speech like all other developed nations have already done. While the column was heavily criticized, it nonetheless reflects a very dangerous mindset which is extremely widespread in other countries and which is growing increasingly common in the United States as well.  The article states that the US needs to pass laws against “hate speech” because “this country is supposedly built on freedom and equality, not on the right to say whatever you want without significant consequences.”

Share
  • Hard Little Machine

    Ronald Radosh pointed out that Herbert Marcuse suggested the employment of ‘repressive tolerance’, that is, the complete suppression of most civil rights of the ‘right’ for the so called greater good. Marcuse was a communist so his definition of the ‘right’ was fairly broad.

    • There are plenty of the Marcuse sort about.

      • winniec

        The Left believe in their own infallibility.

  • Veracious_one

    who decides what constitutes hate speech, will honest criticism of hate speech become the hate speech to be censored?

    • Only if it’s hatey

      • winniec

        ‘Hate speech’, according to the Left, is any criticism of officially designated victims, whether the criticism is valid, reasonable and true or not. Muslims are ‘officially designated victims’ who may never be criticized…like Bill Cosby.

        • ntt1

          no ,cosby bolted from the plantation years ago, and started making points about ebonics and wearing your pants at mid thigh, He was viewed as a defector years ago ,i think there might be some residual respect for him as a successful black though

  • pdxnag

    Censorship and talk of censorship is hate speech.

  • Jason

    For anyone who hasn’t read Mark Steyn’s article from the spring on free speech, I would highly recommend it (link below). One of the (multiple) problems with restricting free speech, as he mentions, is it’s too tempting a tool to be used with any degree of caution:

    “But, once you get a taste for shutting people up, it’s hard to stop. Why bother winning the debate when it’s easier to close it down?”

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/

  • winniec

    Quotations about Freedom of Speech:

    – FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND…TO BE CONTROVERSIAL

    -Ideas don’t have rights. People have rights.

    -I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
    -Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing as S.G. Tallentyre in 1906 (Commonly attributed to Voltaire of whom Hall wrote a biography).

    -“The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

    -“The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief justice at the Nuremburg Trials

    -“…if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.”
    -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

    U.S. law values and permits the right to blaspheme.
    -Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “[I]t is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”

    -My comments: Libtards want free speech for themselves and struggled for hundreds of years for it. Now that they have it, they want to take it away from those who disagree with them.