…they usually cite the excellent experiences of Europeans.
We should let our kids drink wine at dinner, because of the French. Long holidays and government pensions? It works for the Greeks!
Now comes the argument for hate speech laws…from a junior at the University of Austin:
In more than 80 percent of European countries, including Germany, France and the United Kingdom, hate speech is largely prohibited and subject to criminal sanctions. These countries prove the ability and efficacy of such laws, but unfortunately the discussion of how and even if they can by implemented domestically usually stops when the First Amendment argument, a favorite of racists and bigots, is raised.
[Jefferson, Madison and others liked it too! — Dave]
Law professor H.W. Perry has been traveling Europe to deliver speeches about the wide gap between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to freedom of speech.
“Some of the European states have pretty robust protection of freedom of speech,” Perry said. “Particularly Germany has laws that balance free speech with claimed rights of human dignity.”
“Pretty robust” is not my goal for freedoms.
I won’t copy some of the hundreds of mean tweets that a Hollywood actress is said to have gotten, but here’s the follow up sentence in the article:
Such unnecessary and hurtful words lend nothing to potentially improving the actress or movie, and instead seem aimed purely to do emotional harm.
Yes. But emotional harm isn’t the same as physical harm, or unfair financial harm, or any of the other things which would prompt a mature person to seek redress from the government. I have emotional harming experiences every day. It helps to have a loving family, and a dog.
What is it about our younger generation — and for Europeans for that mastter — that makes them so willing to turn to the government as censor?
The Artisan Craft Blog -- Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey 
The problem is that “emotional harm” is entirely subjective, and if being called a DUMBF*CK makes your ass hurt, that’s probably because you’re a DUMBF*CK, whiich is not my problem.
On the issue of free speech, the answer to bad speech is MORE speech. People who want you to shut up can be counted upon to have an inferior argument.
On the issue of “emotional harm:” suck it up, buttercup.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I stopped reading after you cited cishetero white male slaveowners. I’ll be in my safe space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anybody who wants to ban “hate speech” tends to miss the forest for the trees.
American First Amendment rights aren’t in place to protect everyday speech. We have those rights to protect dangerous speech – speech that offends, speech that hurts, speech that is by definition unpopular.
Once you no longer refuse to protect such speech, you have no freedom of speech at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
it’s a control thing. If claims of emotional devastation can be used to shut down others’ speech, then what is spoken or written by others can be controlled.
Me: “Modern feminists are Leftist control-freaks.”
Modern Feminist: ” You can’t say that because it makes me feel bad!”
EU: “The Modern Feminist is right. That’s a 10,000 Euro fine.”
One group of humans gets to control another group of humans. Leftists politicians love this concept.
LikeLiked by 2 people