If the Washington Post’s leadership were smart, they’d shut down production until they can figure out what the hell is going on.
Clearly, they are not, in fact, smart. Because they decided that it would be a great idea to publish this garbage piece by former TIME editor and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel
From @Stengel: Why America needs a hate speech law https://t.co/81XtDZqA0I
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) October 29, 2019
My @WashingtonPost piece on why the very broadness of the First Amendment suggests we should have a hate speech law. And if we did, why the President might be in violation of it. https://t.co/3ybv3kC69f
— Richard Stengel (@stengel) October 29, 2019
Stengel’s piece concludes:
Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?
All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. 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.
Using the “free press” to argue for censorship is certainly a bold strategy. Let’s see how it’s playing out for him:
Recommended
Delete this
— ? Shielded ZEC ? (@ShieldedZcash) October 29, 2019
Apparently "Congress shall make no law…" is too hard to understand
— Rambling Photon (@ramblingphoton) October 29, 2019
Obama had some real morons working for him. https://t.co/oj3dWwBzLt
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) October 29, 2019
Evidently.
What gives you the right to say that? https://t.co/B0Z0YVjZlD
— ?Grim Creature? (@jtLOL) October 29, 2019
Good question. We’re extremely offended by Richard Stengel’s mind-numbingly ignorant take.
hahahaha, the lede to this WaPo piece in favor of hate speech laws, what the actual effhttps://t.co/LvOtuL2zRY pic.twitter.com/ErSeYbQfvd
— Halloween Name Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) October 29, 2019
Austere religious scholars everywhere agree pic.twitter.com/1WocUWloQK
— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) October 29, 2019
"I used to love free speech. Then I met some Arab government officials who said it should be illegal to burn the Koran, and I said, 'wow, great point!'"
— Halloween Name Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) October 29, 2019
“I used to be in favor of the First Amendment but then some Arab diplomats said they didn’t like it and Trump got elected, so I changed my mind.”
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 29, 2019
Still, you have to admire the sheer audacity it takes to write the sentence “let the debate begin” in a piece arguing for censorship.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 29, 2019
Note the cheat btw where the problem with Koran burning is that it "can cause violence by one group against another." Oh? Which groups?
You aren't worried about inspiring Islamaphobes. You're capitulating to murdering fascists. That's what's happening here.
— Halloween Name Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) October 29, 2019
I like too that Stengel thinks we should pass "statutes" to overturn a SCOTUS First Amendment ruling. Good luck! pic.twitter.com/WdnY51wpoa
— Halloween Name Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) October 29, 2019
"The presumption has always been that the marketplace would offer a level playing field. But in the age of social media, that landscape is neither level nor fair."
What does that have to do with hate speech, exactly? https://t.co/M6HJeXCRFK
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
Is he saying the government should regulate truth/falsity to level the playing field? I don't get it.
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
Why would anyone presume that the marketplace would "offer a level playing field"?
— Lionel Mandrake (@LMandrakeJr) October 29, 2019
Why does he think more individuals having access to a platform makes the playing field less level? https://t.co/CU7KxpKNEy
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
This non-linear irrational argument style grinds my gears. What is his point? That we should regulate hate speech because it incites violence? Who does it incite? At one point, he suggests it incites the people who are offended (e.g., by burning the Koran).
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
At another point, he suggests hate speech incites the haters to do bad acts. He then tries responding to the "truth will win out in the marketplace of ideas" argument by claiming the playing field isn't level. How so? Is he saying more people can spread falsehoods?
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
If so, what does that have to do with regulating hate speech? Are we regulating truth/falsity or hate speech? And what is hate speech? None of this makes any clear logical sense.
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
Yes, I spent more time than anyone should trying to make sense of muddled hash, but wtf is WaPo doing publishing this garbage? It reads like a teenager's social studies paper.
— Mo Mo (@molratty) October 29, 2019
That’s being very generous. The only clear takeaway from this mess is that Stengel has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.
gonna be great for libs to give trump power over deciding what is hate speech https://t.co/vd1vBBg0sm
— Ben Laden McDonald (@Bmac0507) October 29, 2019
That you want to put the guy you think would be violation of your hypothetical law in charge of enforcing your hypothetical law demonstrates that you haven’t thought very hard about this. https://t.co/7RYAeHfrIz
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 29, 2019
Poor Richard’s apparently unfamiliar with the expression “be careful what you wish for.” And also with the actual meaning of freedom of speech.
Can anyone remember the last week during which none of America’s major newspapers ran a piece arguing for censorship? https://t.co/0Bxz87c6Gj
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 29, 2019
We’re drawing a blank, honestly.
This is some of the worst tripe I've ever read and I'm honestly surprised @PostOpinions published this utter trash. No, the First Amendment isn't outdated and a child could have come up with a better argument against it than this blubbering word vomit. https://t.co/RKY4BfyPQs
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 29, 2019
I should also note they declined to run my op-ed last year calling on The Post's editorial board to take a position on their parent company's banning of a political book. They never explained why and the editorial board never mentioned the book banning. https://t.co/BdqysGK0A7
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) October 29, 2019
Washington Post having an editorial on limiting free speech
And they whine when they’re called enemy of the ppl? Bwahahahaha
— Malak Kobbe (@Malak_Kobbe) October 29, 2019
Man, WaPo is the absolute worst. They now have an editorial on limiting freedom of speech. Is "Democracy dies in darkness" their mission statement?
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) October 29, 2019
"I'm in favor of free speech, but…"
Thus shall ye know them.
— Patrick Nonwhite (@NonWhiteHat) October 29, 2019
***
Update:
Check out some of 'hate speech' foe Richard Stengel's previous takes on the First Amendment and free speech https://t.co/kp7AbdIkgL
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 29, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member