Prof. Turley Gives Ringside Coverage to the Tire Fire of Bragg’s Closing Arguments...
Report: San Diego Sector Has Taken in More Than 30,000 Chinese Nationals Since...
Manhunt Underway for Driver Who Left Tire Marks on a Pride Mural
Ohio Governor Calls Special Session to Ensure Joe Biden Gets on the Ballot
Gaslighting Parents on the Economy Is a Politically Dangerous Position for Biden, Media...
Canada to Issue 5,000 Residency Visas for Palestinian Refugees
WATCH: Unhinged Pro-Abort Reacts to Peaceful Pro-Life Activist With Unprovoked Profanity a...
WHAT?! DOJ Says North Koreans Stole American's Identities to Get Remote Jobs at...
Master Receipt Keeper Drew Holden Revisits Coverage of the Time Trump Ordered the...
Aid Deliveries to Gaza Suspended After Rough Seas Damage Biden's Pier
Actor Chris Hemsworth Praised His Wife for Her Support and Immediately the Butker...
It's a Cult: Associated Press Is Disappointed More Movies Don't Talk About Climate...
Don't Mourn the Closing of Schools ... Rejoice Because Kids Have Been Released...
Oops. White Liberal DRAGGED for Pretending to Be a Black Guy to Prove...
Alexandria Brown LAYS WASTE to NRO Editorial Blaming Republicans for Democrats' Ohio Ballo...

LA Times op-ed: Unrestricted free speech is giving marginalized groups PTSD and eating disorders

Monday’s 8—0 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Matal v. Tam didn’t score a lot of attention from the news media, and it’s not hard to see why: an Asian-American band called The Slants was arguing for, and won, the right to trademark the name.

Advertisement

The ruling did inspire the New York Times editorial board to rethink its position on banning the Washington Redskins from trademarking the team’s name, and on Wednesday an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times argued that “hate speech” should be restricted, as marginalized groups are hardest hit, and according to research, feel real effects.

https://twitter.com/LakeGregory/status/877595302437339136

Sociologist and legal scholar Laura Beth Nielsen asks readers to consider speech from the perspective of equality, using examples of real-life restrictions on speech like city ordinances that ban panhandling. Such codes favor the “powerful and popular” from aggressive requests for money. Now extend that further to other disadvantaged groups:

Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders.

These negative physical and mental health outcomes — which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression — mean that hate speech is not “just speech.” Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality.

Advertisement

Free speech absolutists, therefore, need to consider that marginalized groups suffer so that people can be hateful. Thoughts?

https://twitter.com/asher_lamar_wu/status/877585411996082177

https://twitter.com/sjfotos/status/877579509104377859

https://twitter.com/KatherineDurde1/status/877583997584510977

https://twitter.com/FacepalmMigrane/status/877610501718425600

Also in today’s news, by coincidence:

Advertisement

* * *

Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos