UNC Orwellians continue to struggle with this nagging right-of-free-speech thingie

“Hate speech tough to define,” proclaims a headline in today’s The Daily Tar Heel. The article describes the nebulous, subjective nature of determining whether something was “hate speech” or allowable speech. Of course it doesn’t occur to anyone that this fact alone underscores the reason why the framers of our Constitutions (not just the U.S. Constitution, but the N.C. Constitution as well, which is even more protective of speech) simply protected all speech.

Instead, these folks want to equate discrimination with what someone says. Even so, what they still can’t fathom is given their definition, what instructor Crystall said was much closer to “hate speech” that what the student said. The student, after all, was responding to the instructor’s lesson topic. It was Crystall who told the entire class that what the student said was “violent” “hate speech” that was “a perfect example” of what someone who’s a “white, heterosexual, [C]hristian male” ¹ would say, identifying the student by name.

They held a panel on the subject as well (the Pope Center was blamed again, as according to rote). They’re worried about “self-censorship” ? while pushing it on others. Irony, thou art a campus leftist.

Look what they demand: the freedom to speak as they see fit (OK, we’re with you so far) and “protection for all sexual orientations” ² from offensive speech (here’s where we diverge ? you cannot wrap yourself in the mantle of free-speech to argue that you should be free to prosecute someone for “hate speech” without appearing a total fool).

I agree with the AAUP here: ?Insofar as a particular professor might be thrust into the rough and tumble of the public arena, the law demands, as a prominent legal scholar once put it, a certain toughening of the mental hide. Such is the price of free speech.?

A thin-skinned “free-speech warrior” given to running to the campus cops whimpering “Hate speech, hate speech; get him!” is otherwise known as a clown. So either toughen up or give in and buy yourselves the wigs and floppy shoes.

———————
NOTES

1. For you campus Orwellians reading this, note that that is hitting the Big Three Discrimination No-Nos plus one ? race, gender, and sexual orientation, plus creed.

2. I admit I haven’t updated my copy of Newspeak, but doesn’t “all” mean “all”? Thus, wouldn’t “all sexual orientations” include “heterosexual”? Pls. advise.