If one drew up a hate speech law that included only the 10 most offensive words in the English language, before a year was out the list would have grown to the size an unabridged dictionary - - which is, perhaps, the intent of Spengler and other wannabe tyrants.

The first thing that stands out about Stengel's self-righteous pablum is that he seems to operate from a baseline of believing the Constitution gives these rights to people. It does not. The Constitution restricts the US government's ability to limit or abridge these already-existing rights (later, state and local governments were similarly restricted).

That's partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era.

Wannabe tyrants always dismiss the Bill of Rights as "engineered for a simpler era" -- as if our forefathers did not live complex lives, debate complicated issues, and confront confounding challenges.

The dilemmas they faced were not "simpler." Madison, Jefferson, et al did not engineer a Constitution for a simpler time, they engineered a Constitution for all time.

In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

Everyone had a megaphone then, too. The reach was shorter, but the marketplace was also less crowded with voices trying to talk over you.

Pay to have your polemic printed or shouted on a street corner and, if your words had merit, they'd be picked up by a larger audience. Even Thomas Paine's pamphlets started out with small printings. Today, they're remembered as having helped jump start the revolution with widespread appeal.

Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

It also allows someone to burn a Bible or a Torah. It puts all holy books on the same footing -- sacred to believers, but not forced on others.

You allow it because someday, the people who would enslave you with a Koran, Bible, or Torah may try to take over.

And anyone who asks why his sacred book can be burned without expressing concern about the safety of sacred books in general may not be all that "sophisticated."

Another note: the First Amendment is specifically about free speech and freedom of the press (publication). The courts have interpreted it as protecting free expression, i.e., burning flags or books, interpretive dance, or performance art.

Conan is right. Politics in colonial America were not genteel; they were boisterous, sometimes to the point that they might shock even our modern sensibilities. There were a lot of speakers, town criers and pamphleteers who were letting it all hang out, politically and often personally. Libel laws really didn't exist back then, so all kinds of rumor and innuendo flew around.

Picking up a few points from here and there:

"That's partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era."

Of course, that's the Left's critique of the entire Constitution. On the surface, it appears to have some legitimacy -- our nation surely has changed a lot from the Colonial era. However, what has not changed is human nature, and that's what the Constitution really addresses. The Left's critique, then, always winds up being reduced to a fashion statement:
"The Constitution was written by old people! It's not hip and with-it! The people who wrote it probably didn't even have the latest iPhones!"

"It's a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the "thought that we hate," but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another."

And this goes regardless of whether committing violence is a reasonable reaction to the situation? Especially when the people committing the violence are the same people who want to blow up the Constitution? One thing that is disappearing from our standards of law is the "reasonable person" standard. Things like sexual harassment law used to be defined this way: would the allegedly harassing conduct actually be considered harassment by a reasonable person. #MeToo has explicitly discarded this notion, with the "believe all women" standard. If you are politically correct, you now have the right to seek redress for anything that you take as an offense against you, regardless of how trivial or nonsensical your claim may be.

"I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. "

Yeah, so what? America itself is an outlier. If you traveled the world representing the American people, and that never occurred to you, there's not much else to say.

And finally: When I win the Presidency, I will sign an executive order banning advocacy of limiting the First Amendment, which means Stengel's article will be banned in the name of free speech. So there.

(Yes, that last was facetious. We really need a sarcasm font.)

"You want Free Speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - President Andrew Shepard (The American President)

You defend free speech not to defend the other guy’s rights, but to defend your own. For what can be taken from him can be taken from you.

Hmmm...Does he really want Orange Man Bad enforcing that law? or, as I like to challenge such ninnies, you write the law, I get to determine what is hate speech.

In my regime, the ninnies wearing Che shirts would be lined up and shot. I'm pretty sure Che would approve.

he seems to operate from a baseline of believing the Constitution gives these rights to people. It does not.

This should be shouted from the rooftops. It matters not if you want to think bestowed by a Creator or the natural rights of man, the government does not grant us any rights.

I'm pretty sure the ninnies would find this hateful, Dave, with a side help of violent threat.

And you smoked on stage. Indoors. And it wasn't weed!!! Life prison, for you, buddy.

"Don't get mad at 'em, don't hate on 'em," Chappelle said Sunday. "Man, it's not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn't work out."

https://reason.com/2019/10/28/dave-chappelle-second-amendment-is-just-in-case-the-first-one-doesnt-work-out/

"...sophisticated Arab diplomats..."

Sophisticated Arab diplomats? Like the ones from countries where men with sticks beat insufficiently submissive women on public sidewalks? Where they fling gay people off high places? Where people are beheaded for disagreeing with austere religious scholars? Does he mean sophisticated Arab diplomats from countries where they still have monarchs whom Presidents like Obama bow down to? Progressive people just admire the hell out of dictators and tyrants.

"...sophisticated Arab diplomats... did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?"

"It's a fair question."

I think it's a stupid question that free non-Muslims can address openly only in a country that protects freedom of speech.

Youtube has been taking down videos where people are trying to document atrocities in Iraq or Syria. Documentaries about the WWII holocaust are taken down as is are pages on Facebook documenting islamist terrorism around the world. Try putting up photos of aborted babies and see how long your post lasts on facebook. All of these because they depict violence --which isn't even hate speech. Politicians love to claim that anything exposing their corruption is hate speech. Leftists want to claim that any argument against feminism or abortion or transitioning children or pointing out cultural issues with black scholastic achievement or violence are all hate speech. We are then left unable to view atrocities, political corruption, terrorism, or terrible policies or discuss them, all in the name of stopping "hate".

"Yes, the First Amendment protects the "thought that we hate," but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another."

In a free, civilized country, if one party's speech gives rise to another party's violence, the fault lies with the violent party. Everybody used to know that by the time they started kindergarten. It was universally taught, usually by mothers who were sophisticated enough to communicate effectively and lovingly with small children; backed up by ethical fathers sophisticated enough to lovingly lay down the law; and reinforced from kindergarten through 12th grade by emotionally mature teachers sophisticated enough to keep 32 kids functioning peacefully in a crowded classroom.

Stengel: "...the First Amendment... should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another."

Banning "speech that can cause violence" means being subjugated by people who are: 1)unable to regulate their emotions, and 2)comfortable resorting to violence as a means for controlling others.

Under Stengel's ideal, who do you think would have more power over the rest of us:
... violent, fascist antifa-turds?
... whinging victim feminists?
... progressive snowflake trigger-twits?
... or followers of austere religious scholars?

If offensive speech (which could also mean insufficiently flattering speech) justified violence, my money would be on the followers of austere religious scholars. They're less fearful of using lethal violence; and leftist antifa-turds, whinging feminists and college trigger-twits are no less kafirs than the rest of us. About the only thing the followers of austere religious scholars are afraid of is armed toxic cis-males.

...but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.

And how exactly would we legally define "speech that can cause violence by one group against another?"

If someone was attacked for wearing a MAGA hat, especially a red one, he would clearly be guilty of causing violence, and then the message MAGA would be recognized as hateful speech. But if it was a new message, say "Ivanka 2024" for example, would a threat on Twitter be probable cause for an arrest, or enough evidence to convict the perpetrator?

> The First Amendment is
> first for a reason.

Love Chappelle, but IIRC, this is not precisely true.

Across the lifetime, and forgive the awkward wording, Time magazine has time and time again proven to be a brainless, unprincipled waste of trees and reader attention.

To be fair, we've always had some legal restrictions on free speech. "'Fire' in a crowded theater" is probably the best-known example, but also incitement to riot and libel/slander. Essentially, speech which is objectively likely to cause physical or economic harm has long been illegal.

I see two trends which have opened the door to the kind of "hate speech" rules we've been seeing lately. One, as Cousin Dave mentioned, is that the "reasonable person" standard has fallen out of favor. The other is that hurt feelings have gained equivalence to physical injury in a lot of people's minds.

Nothing to see here. Those who feel themselves out of power are the champions of free speech. Those who are in power, interested in preserving the status quo, are against the voicing of any ideas that threaten their hold on power.

And in other shocking developments, water remains wet.

What Patrick said.

Also:

"We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties." -Nikolai Bukharin after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

"We see now that infringement of freedom is necessary with regard to the opponents of the revolution. At a time of revolution, we cannot allow freedom for the enemies of the people and of the revolution. That is a surely clear, irrefutable conclusion." - also Bukharin