"There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. As a society, we are technically free to express ourselves without regard for the mental or emotional well-being of others. But if the best defense for a statement is that it isn’t technically illegal to express, where is the benefit? What does it accomplish? Why should we as individuals tolerate language and attitudes which harm the unity of our society?"Maggie, you're absolutely right; we need the government to determine what kind of speech is hateful and forbidden. President Trump should create a panel of censors to determine what language is permitted, and this commission should be staffed with people like Rush Limbaugh, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro, Sarah Palin, and Milo Yiannopoulos.
[waits for hysterical screeching to abate]
No? You don't like that? Then maybe you should rethink your position on the government dictating what can and cannot be said in our society.
In fact, here's an idea: Always consider how your opponents could use a law against you before you advocate for its implementation.
Oh, who am I kidding? These are the same people who will declare that "Trump is literally Hitler!" and then in the same breath demand that "Only the government should have guns!" ...because if you're fighting "literally Hitler", it's totes sensible to be disarmed first, right?
Being stupid should cause physical pain. Not injury, mind you, but pain intense enough that it can't be ignored. I'm thinking taser-level pain, where it stops you dead in your tracks and it hurts like hell, but has no lasting effects except maybe a bloody nose from falling on your face or soiled pants from when you lost bowel control. Pavlovian conditioning to stop stupidity would benefit humanity more than anything else I can think of.
No comments:
Post a Comment