The WaPo recently published an editorial stating
"Why America needs a hate speech law".
(link is to an outline.com version for those who do not have access due to WaPo firewall and 'numbers of articles' policies.)
For the world of me I cannot reconcile the last two sentences that the author writes:
Quote:I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate. It undermines the very values of a fair marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is designed to protect.
My initial view of this position may be surmised as an angry old folk deplorable response that seems to be the catcall for having a gd opinion these days.
But I think I would propose an alternative: I would have zero issue with having a law proscribing 'hate speech' --- as long as it reserves to me what constitutes 'hate speech'.
Does it bother others on this board (left, right, somewhere else) that this point of view is mainstream enough to engender a full editorial in the not biased WaPo?
Anyone think it is a good idea? If so, why? And how would you implement it if you think it a good idea?
Not trying to be an acerbic ******* here, but I am very truly interested in the basis of how anyone could actually subscribe to this.