Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?What pettifogging claptrap. What intellectual rot.
Such lickspittle mini-Moas used to have at least the decency to keep their anti-freedom fantasies to themselves. Now they are happy to hoist the flag of intolerance and sail the high seas of unctuous virtue signaling.
Fortunately for those of the tolerant, inquisitive, open, classical liberal world, such freedoms produce a quick and ready answer to these nattering nascent nabobs.
From The New York Times Says 'Free Speech Is Killing Us.' But Violent Crime Is Lower Than Ever. by Robby Soave.
Soave points out that Marantz's siren song of sovietism is predicated on an untruth.
Noxious speech is causing tangible harm.If the speech of others which he dislikes is indeed a cause of tangible harm, he might still have a bad solution but at least he would have grounds for an argument.
But if supposedly increasingly noxious speech is not causing tangible harm, then he is rhetorically becalmed on a lee shore with a perilous current pushing him to a hard reality.
Soave proceeds to eviscerate the founding lie.
So it's worth exploring whether the claim "free speech is killing us" really holds up.Increasing protection of First Amendment rights and increasing protection of Second Amendment rights leads to plunging crime rates. Flourishing freedom is a rhetorical nightmare for the penny-ante Pol Pot.
It does not. Today the U.S. has greater protections for free speech and less violence. The Supreme Court has recognized increasingly fewer exceptions to the First Amendment over the last several decades. The result has not been an increase in violence: The violent crime rate has plummeted since the early 1990s.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment