No surprise, U students want Yik Yak censored…

… along with politically incorrect speech generally.


A new call for the federal government to crack down on a social media app popular with college students, but sometimes used to spread hate, is a study in how to violate the First Amendment, according to one legal expert.

A coalition of advocacy groups penned a letter Oct. 20 to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights demanding more monitoring and regulation of the popular free app, Yik Yak, by college administrators — claiming the app is being used for sexual and race-based online harassment and intimidation that is prohibited on college campuses by Title IX.

Yik Yak, which launched in 2013 and is popular on about 1,600 college campuses, allows smartphone users to anonymously create and view “Yaks” within a 1.5-mile radius.

But the anonymity of Yik Yak has also created a forum for hateful, sexist and racist comments. In some instances, the speech has crossed the line to actual threats — like those reported within the past year at the University of Mary Washington, where female students were threatened with rape and murder via the social media app.

Well, good, that means there must be dozens of witnesses to a genuinely criminal form of speech. Shouldn’t a free society encourage such persons to use Yik Yak more?

Classically and no, I am not making this up, the student ‘crats are relying on a 1969 court case involving kindergarten through Grade 12, to bolster their case for legal intervention against speech that, while not criminal in the traditional sense, offends legal adults like themselves—whether or not they were hearers.

See one law prof’s reaction:

(There is no “hate speech” exception to First Amendment protection.) But despite that, the coalition is arguing that the speech should be restricted precisely because of the viewpoints it expresses, and the offense and “hostile environment” that those viewpoints cause. The coalition is citing an earlier Office for Civil Rights statement that, to be prohibited, “harass[ing]” speech “does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents.”

No it will just have to be something ‘crats-in-training don’t like.

One fears some Americans will be surprised to discover how little their neighbours care about freedom of speech, unless it means profanity, blasphemy, hatred of Christians and Jews, snuff, or porn. Under a Clinton presidency, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

is apt to come under serious fire.

Clinton does not like the First Amendment.