If some (or, rather, many) were to have their way, they would amend the First Amendment to this: Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin. As per usual, the proponents of the “feelings” standard would persist in leaving it undefined. After all, why bother with that antiquated requirement for precise definitions when, nowadays, the “progressive” West is (all too) experienced at predicting and prohibiting the kind of speech that, under the latest implicit standard of feelings, would be deemed beyond the pale?
By the West, I don’t mean the judicial and legislative branches of the governments of the United States and European countries; no longer is it trendy to settle on judicial and legislative experts to determine the bounds of liberties. Instead, the up-and-coming de facto judge, jury, and executioner are Muslim extremists—a three-in-one package deal—who, in effect, enforce the “feelings” standard with a bombing here, a beheading there, and fatwas everywhere. Western political puppets are, then, clued in to what that standard is, and tacitly comply by lending their authority to the prohibition of any speech not congratulatory of Islam. Meanwhile, they diligently remind their people that the barbarism has nothing to do with Islam.
A refreshing change of pace from Harvard.