Sticks and stones

There is no such thing as hate speech, despite what the editorialists at The New York Times would have you believe.

There are just thin skinned and thinner skinned people and explosive ones, like the two jihadists who attempted to attack the Garland draw Muhammad contest.

The answer to speech you hate is never violence or gag laws or campus  policies, but more speech, speech that persuades and wins the day.

Under the headline, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech, the Gray Lady lectured:

“Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Anguish is in the eye of beholder.

Are we to blame if we call for tighter border security, if it causes anguish to some? Are at fault if we think taxes are high enough, though some devoutly believe more spending is needed?

Are we at fault for opposing the draft in time of war?

It is matter of degrees, you say? After all, you shant falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.

That quote from a WWI opinion sent a man to jail, because he argued that the 13th Amendment prohibited endentured servitude — the draft.

Hate speech, dangerous speech or free speech?

The debate must not be foreshortened by the easily offended.