‘Hate speech is not free speech,’ insist college presidents

A group representing 23 institutions of higher learning in San Antonio penned an open letter earlier this month declaring that “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” are not legitimate forms of free speech.

The signatories assert that such forms of expression “are not welcome or accepted” on their campuses, but other public universities have conceded that the Constitution prohibits censorship of offensive speech.

  • simus1

    A group representing 23 marxist controlled institutions of ………………..

    • Twenty three institutions of higher learning in San Antonio would not know the meaning of “free speech” if it bit them in the ass.

      Students at these “institutions” need to take their tuition money elsewhere.

      Even progressive fools know the buck is king.

  • Blacksmith

    Not welcome maybe, but it is still a right in our constitution.

    • Editor

      So James Madison, was way smarter and more honest than the “group representing 23 institutions of higher learning” who wrote this vague, open ended, ill defined open letter. If they don’t define “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” now, I don’t trust them to define it later, tailoring it to whoever or whatever offends their fragile feelings in the future.

  • Thomas Henderson

    “Hate speech is not free speech”, insists college presidents.

    So? Critical theory is not critical thinking either.

  • CodexCoder

    Hate is in the ear of the listener as is the ability to take offense. I may offer the same statement to different people and only one of them gets upset because only one of them internalizes the statement, believes that there is a grain of truth to it, and then reacts to it. The person that reacts chooses that reaction – they are not forced into it.

    For example, being a white person in South America, and being called “Diablo blanco” (from personal experience). I could internalize the statement and get upset, OR I can evaluate the statement for factual truth (yes, I can’t help that I am white, but I am not demonic), and ignore it. In the first case, I choose to take offense. In the second case, I let it bounce off of me. Hate speech? Maybe, depending on the tone, but who really cares?

    Only someone looking for a grievance will find one. And that is the whole problem with hate speech and by extension, hate crimes. The physical offense is the greater problem, the words are not. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” is still true today. The college signatories are only showing their own weakness, and lack of character.

    And because hate speech is subjective, you cannot write enough rules to prevent it. It is just like trying to pen a complete definition of fairness – there is no end.

    • mobuyus

      Even Steven is the complete definition of fairness.

  • moraywatson

    Somebody needs to dust off their pubic school class notes on Venn diagrams. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say things others find ‘inappropriate’. What the fascists really mean is that freedoms should not belong to those THEY hate.

    And how the heck did San Antonio amass ’23 institutions of higher learning’?

  • Uncommunist

    What about all the other Institutes of higher learning? How ignorant is that ? The marxist preachers ignoring inclusiveness.

  • Tooth&Claw

    The consumer has the power here. This is an institution that is paid to teach and test on certain subjects by the student and supported by alumni and parents. If this school wants to eliminate the right to say what is on your mind because it’s unacceptable, it’s time to pull funding and let them drown in irrelevance.
    There is no such thing as “hate’ speech.
    Hate is an emotion (extreme dislike) and they are trying to criminalize feelings. People use language to express those feelings appropriately.
    Anyone remember telling a toddler to “use your words’ instead of acting out?

  • Norman_In_New_York

    The tuition they charge is not money spent on higher education.

  • Solo712

    Just so you don’t get confused about the first rule of “hate speech”: I can trash-talk you to hallelujah, but you can’t trash-talk me back !

  • ANY speech is free speech, even if it is repugnant.

    • Watchman

      The protection for free speech is really only a protection for speech that someone does not like (“hate speech”?) since it would otherwise not need that protection in the first place.

      • Anything can be construed as hate speech these days.

        One would end with duct tape over one’s mouth.

        • Watchman

          Exactly. Which is why there shouldn’t be exemptions for ‘hate speech’ in ‘free speech’ protections.

          • Also, with free speech, people tend to hang themselves.

            Hang away!

  • lgeubank

    “Hate speech is not free speech,” insist college presidents.
    That is:
    “Speech I disagree with is not free speech.”
    “Speech contrary to the PC orthodoxy is not free speech.”
    “Speech I want to suppress is not free speech.”