MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Howard Dean Thinks ‘Hate Speech Is Not Protected By the First Amendment.’ It Is, Though.

Ann Coulter's remarks might be hateful, but they shouldn't prevent her from speaking at UC-Berkeley.

DeanPAT BENIC/UPI/NewscomHere we go again: Former Democratic National Committee chairman tweeted that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." As Dean—who once ran for president of the United States—should know, this is completely wrong.

Dean's tweet was a response to another tweet from a former New York Times reporter who pointed out that Ann Coulter once joked about how Timothy McVeigh should have blown up The NYT instead of a federal building. Coulter is in the news because the University of California-Berkeley cancelled her planned visit to campus on grounds that administrators could not guarantee her safety—irate protesters have vowed mob violence if she speaks. The university has now reversed that decision, thankfully.

Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech might be a reason for students not to invite her to speak. But her speech, hateful though it may be, is not illegal. The Constitution does not exempt "hate speech" from First Amendment protection.

Similarly, the Supreme Court does not recognize "hate" as a category of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment. In the 2011 decision Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket a military serviceman's funeral and wave signs displaying such messages as "God hates you," "fag troops," and "You're going to hell." If this kind of speech is constitutional, it seems obvious that Coulter's joke is as well.

Specific, true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. But even if Coulter's remark was intended to be serious, it would have amounted to an endorsement of previous violence, not a call to future violence.

So Dean should brush up on the First Amendment.

For what it's worth, not all former Democratic politicians have cast aside the principle of free speech in their zeal to denounce Coulter's visit to Berkeley. Robert Reich—a leftist intellectual, former secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton, and professor of public policy at Berkeley—recently expressed relief that the university was allowing Coulter's event to proceed.

"I'm glad the university has reversed course," he wrote. "How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter's arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?"

He continued:

It's one thing to cancel an address at the last moment because university and local police are not prepared to contain violence – as occurred, sadly, with Yiannopoulos. It's another thing entirely to cancel an address before it is given, when police have adequate time to prepare for such eventualities.

Free speech is what universities are all about. If universities don't do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren't universities. They're playpens.

Kudos to Reich. This is exactly the kind of full-throated defense of free speech I wish all university professors were making on a daily basis.

Photo Credit: PAT BENIC/UPI/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • I can't even||

    Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech...

    Blow me. Just defend her free speech and be done with it. They already got Milo, if they get her, they just move it in a notch and will be after you Robby.

  • SIV||

    Of course Reason's pet commie faggot believes "hate speech" is something that exists in American jurisprudence. This is one of many reasons 5-10+ year commenters have abandoned this blog's comments.

  • NebulousFocus||

    The numbers don't lie.

  • Zeb||

    Of course Reason's pet commie faggot believes "hate speech" is something that exists in American jurisprudence.

    Um, he notes pretty explicitly that quite the opposite is true:

    The Constitution does not exempt "hate speech" from First Amendment protection.
    the Supreme Court does not recognize "hate" as a category of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.

  • wareagle||

    and in noting that Coulter's speech is as protected as anyone else's, Robby not only manages to determine that it is hate speech (whatever the fuck that is), he sees Robert Reich's response as a "full-throated defense" of the First Amendment. This is Reich:

    "How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter's arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?"
    To play the Robby game, the correct response here is "and if anyone knows vapidity, it is Robert B. Reich."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, Robby can go fuck himself. Coulter's analysis is far more accurate and insightful than his will ever be. Nor is she hateful. Her humor is however, very dry and biting.

  • Chipper Mourning Will Grigg||

    You hear that, Robby. You are only allowed to defend free speech. You are not allowed to have any opinions about it. You are just our free speech monkey. And you better do what we tell you, or we are gonna run away to our echo chamber safe space and not complain again.

  • chemjeff||

    Yeah, Robby! Come on, why don't you just go join Team Red already?

  • WakaWaka||

    At this juncture, I'm really not sure how anyone can be on Team Blue's side of this argument. Keep selling out

  • Zeb||

    Who said anything about Team Blue?

  • WakaWaka||

    Well, considering that some on these comments assume that people who unequivocally support 'free speech' are just shilling for 'Team Red' then it is only natural to assume that they are shilling for 'Team Blue'. And frankly, when it comes to 'free speech', I absolutely agree with Team Red. They support the ruling in Citizens United and oppose these speech codes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Plus, Team Blue is outright Marxist anymore.

  • JayWye||

    the DemocRATs are officially against the 1st,2nd,4th,5th,and 13th Amendments. That's the significant part of the entire Bill of Rights.
    they're anti-free speech,anti free exercise of religion,anti-gun,are FOR "guilty until proven innocent",are FOR civil asset forfeiture and misuse of eminent domain,and for involuntary servitude via "public accommodation" laws.

    IOW,they're anti-American.

  • zazoo||

    Don't forget the 3rd Amendment, the one that stops the government having soldiers live in your house. They are against that too !

  • Calidissident||

    Why is unequivocal support for free speech equated with "never criticizing anything a conservative says." Robby is perfectly entitled to support the principle of free speech while also criticizing its usage, nothing about that negates support for free speech. The people attacking Robby are doing the exact same thing, but for some reason it's only ok to do that to people to your left.

  • Zeb||

    some on these comments assume that people who unequivocally support 'free speech' are just shilling for 'Team Red' then it is only natural to assume that they are shilling for 'Team Blue'

    No, it really isn't. Particularly on a libertarian site where people often take the "pox on both their houses" position on the major parties.

  • Calidissident||

    Everyone knows that you're not a libertarian if you dislike Ann Coulter.

  • chemjeff||

    Something tells me that if this article were about Rachel Maddow's hate speech, you wouldn't have nearly as much difficulty accepting Robby's criticism of said speech.

  • damikesc||

    Robby doesn't feel the Left is capable of hate speech. He has certainly never mentioned it.

  • I can't even||

    That "something" would be your imagination.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There would never BE an article about Maddow's 'hate speech' on reason.

    They would never define anything she said as 'hate speech' because when it comes to leftist utterances, reason writers are free speech purists. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftist stance nets one approbation from all sides--as it should.

    But when the situation is reversed, one must engage in hypocrisy lest the site's leftists go into apoplexy.

    Thus, people on the right can engage in hate speech--and it should be protected, while people on the left do not engage in hate speech because the term is an affront to the idea of free speech.

    And remember, we have always been at war with....................

  • Calidissident||

    The article isn't primarily about Coulter's speech, it's about Dean's reaction to her speech. You guys make it sound like he wrote the article to criticize Coulter. Even when he writes articles that are primarily critical of people on the left, you all still have to bitch if there's anything in there negative about a conservative.

  • E. Kline||

    Because he ALWAYS has to throw something in there like that.

  • Ron||

    Maddow is a prime example the left is never accused of hate speech even when they have called for the arrest and even murder of others, or even putting their "boot to their neck" as Obama claimed, while any person on the right is always classified as hate

  • E. Kline||

    And something tells me if this was about Maddow, Robby wouldn't feel the overwhelming compulsion to flagellate her in order to appear even-handed.
    I, as are many others, am sick of his need to always interject ( sometimes mid sentence) some cousin of mea culpa to worthless trash like the Coulter protesters.

  • chemjeff||

    "If the censors get Rachel Maddow off the air, they just move it in a notch and will be after you, Robby! Come now, you should go to the mat defending not just her right to free speech, but the contents of her speech as well!"

  • Zeb||

    Can we please just assume the criticisms of Robby's editorializing and stop bitching about it in every single fucking post? Get over it, it's what he does.

    What response do you think you are going to get at this point? He's obviously not going to change. No one is forcing you to read it.

  • Nikkodemus||

    And by that same logic, you are not forced to come down here and read the comments.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    And by that same logic, you're not forced to read the comments about the comments.

  • Nikkodemus||

    True, but I didn't come here to specifically complain about the comments.

  • Zeb||

    No, I am not. As I say below, I'd probably be better off ignoring it. But I guess I'm a masochist or something. That doesn't mean that I have to like the fact that people shit up the comments with the same tiresome bitching about every fucking post.

  • ifthenwhy||

    For Reason to even use terms like "Hate Speech" clearly demonstrates a political bias that is in stark contrast to the principals that it espouses.

    Is it just me, or does it feel like Reason is openly courting Progressives with their "Look Ma, we hate Trump too!" rhetoric?

    And calling Coulter "hateful" is about as lazy as it gets. What's next, is Milo a pedophile too?

  • TBlakely||

    What is the official definition of 'hate speech' and who was authorized to make that definition?

  • SIV||

    Robbie know it when he hears it.

  • Chipper Mourning Will Grigg||

    It's sort of like SIV and a sexually receptive Araucana rooster.

  • GILMORE™||

    He actually got it right the first time around =

    Constitutional speech protections wouldn't be very strong if they did not include hate speech, since one person's statement of hate is another's statement of truth. "George Bush is a war criminal" might be construed as a hateful statement if you're George Bush, after all.

    If "hate speech" is entirely subjective and hence impossible to define categorically, then it simply doesn't exist.

    Of course, re-stating that same point in this context would make it harder to claim that people he disfavors engage in "hate speech". So.... yeah, just pretend it was a constitutional oversight.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Obviously, speech that Howard Dean disagrees with, and Howard Dean. I don't think Howard Dean has put any more thought into the issue than that. I have heard a rumor that Howard Dean spends a lot of time thinking pornographically about creatures of the hircine variety.

  • Zeb||

    There isn't one. That's the whole point of the post.

    Jesus Christ, Robby deserves some of the shit that he gets, but people are just making shit up now.

    He states his opinion that she engages in hateful speech. Then makes it clear that there is no legal or "official" definition for "hate speech".

    I probably should just ignore it, but damnit, I think there might be some interesting discussion going on and half the time it just ends up being people bitching about the same old tiresome shit.

  • Ron||

    Robby should have said "some people consider Coulters speech hate full" where as his statement means that he is agreeing with them which for some people when reading that will assume its a truthfull statement instead of an opinion for it was written. Now Robby does have the right to think her speech is hateful but many of us come here to reason to read more balanced articles and flat out statements of that sort take away any balance that we may have been hoping for.

  • Calidissident||

    Reason is an opinionated outlet, it's not just reporting news, so I don't see why Robby can't offer his opinion of Coulter's speech any more than he offers his opinion of Dean's (beyond stating it's incorrect from a legal POV). Honestly, I don't get the bitching that Robby is somehow defending free speech less by calling her speech hate speech. Isn't it more of a defense of free speech to acknowledge something is hateful and still defend it's right to be said? I don't see how the people more interested in denying Coulter's speech is hateful are somehow more defensive of the principle of free speech.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not saying his habit of inserting his "not OK" stuff isn't annoying. But he's clearly not going to stop it, so why does everyone have to complain about it every damn time?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Robby has to be sure to throw a little virtue signaling about Coulter being a big meanie into his article.

  • Calidissident||

    And the people defending poor Ann Coulter's honor like rabid dogs are in no way engaging in virtue signaling?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Conservatives don't give a fuck about virtue signaling. That's why there are no equivocating little apologies for any other bullshit built into conservative statements. Just the statement.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, and everyone knows it and sees it immediately. There is no further need to point it out and bitch about it on every goddamn post.

  • Ron||

    the left is clearly the arbiter of what is hate no one else gets to decide.

  • TBlakely||

    What is the official definition of 'hate speech' and who was authorized to make that definition?

  • NOT a Naked Intruder||

    "How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter's arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?"

    Oh, I dunno, Rob of the Reich, they could get in a lot of practice with "vapid" speech by just listening to your shit. At least Ann can be entertaining. You, Sir, are a cure for insomnia and Liberty.

  • SukieTawdry||

    How good of you to grudgingly defend Coulter's rights.

  • SIV||

    New here?

    Ann Coulter has no hateful speech rights a cosmotarian cuck is bound to respect.

  • Zeb||

    And you can tell that's the case because what he wrote says exactly the opposite.

  • Alsø alsø wik||

    "Free speech is what universities are all about." Citation needed.

  • E. Kline||

    "Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech..."

    Sigh...I hate you Robby.

  • GILMORE™||

    Even when he gets the headline-conclusion correct, he shits-up the rationale so badly you begin to wonder where he got it from.

  • MarkLastname||

    Sometimes, maybe. Here? Come on. Coulter is a malignant cunt, a creationist retard and a nut case who makes Alex Jones sound kinda with it. I won't fault Robby here.

  • JeremyR||

    I don't like her, but her politics are pretty standard Republican.

  • GILMORE™||

    Coulter is a malignant cunt, a creationist retard and a nut case who makes Alex Jones sound kinda with it. I won't fault Robby here.

    You're confusing "pointing out stupid criticisms" with "asserting the opposite" of those stupid criticisms.

    the point in this particular case is that in one breath, robby will note that hate speech is impossible to define because its entirely subjective, and has no categorical definition (e.g. see above)

    ... and in the next breath, blithely assert someone he dislikes "has a history of engaging in it". Not just 'he thinks so', but asserts it an objective fact.

    I don't care a whit about Ann Coulter. What i care about is this endless "have your cake and eat-it-too-ism", two-faced rhetorical bullshit, which on one hand pretends to defend speech-rights, and on the other hand wants to be seen as sympathizing with censors.

    in this case, any appeal to principle is undermined by pretending that accusations of 'hate speech' are de-facto valid in the first place

    its no different than saying that "Title IX is bad... But, of course *rape culture still exists*".... or ""Antifa shouldn't be violent... but to be sure, the Fascist threat is real....""

    1-step forward, 2-steps back

  • chemjeff||

    "What i care about is this endless "have your cake and eat-it-too-ism", two-faced rhetorical bullshit, which on one hand pretends to defend speech-rights, and on the other hand wants to be seen as sympathizing with censors."

    Oh I see. So even if the censors do happen to say something truthful, in your view, the correct way to oppose censorship is not only to object to the censorship itself, but to deny the truthfulness of the censors' claims?

    Ann Coulter DOES say a lot of horrible hateful things. But in Gilmore-world, if I point that out, I guess that means I'm on "team censorship".

    This is the kind of tribal bullshit that ought to be reserved for the Team Red/Team Blue cheerleading sections of the Internet, not a place like Reason IMO.

  • GILMORE™||

    even if the censors do happen to say something truthful, in your view, the correct way to oppose censorship is not only to object to the censorship itself, but to deny the truthfulness of the censors' claims?

    no.

    stop trying to explain back to me what "my view" actually is and read what i actually wrote you idiot.

  • chemjeff||

    "its no different than saying that "Title IX is bad... But, of course *rape culture still exists*""

    Of course! The correct response is:

    "Title IX is bad, and furthermore, there is no such thing as rape culture! It is all a lie! I will deny reality because if I admit what you are saying is true, it will only embolden your tribe to attack my tribe! Facts and reason and logic and evidence are secondary concerns compared to the tribal war between the Bad Evil Proggy Left and the Good Virtuous Noble Rightwing Warriors!"

  • maki||

    Chemjeff, easy on the meds and straw men. "Hate speech" is a liberal construct. Racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc, comments are that. There is a term for them. "Hate speech" is whatever liberals say it is. Read 1984. You'll be off your medication within the year once you see how you engage in seeing crimethink in divergent opinions.

  • chemjeff||

    "Hate speech" is a liberal construct.

    OH NOEZ! NOT THOSE DAMN LIBRULS AGAIN!

    Maybe your sneer would carry more weight if it was made at some Team Red boosterism website.

    "Hate speech" is whatever liberals say it is

    Actually, it isn't. I'll take the Wikipedia definition as a better representation of the term (no doubt edited by nefarious libruls to conceal their true evil intent):

    "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation."

    And frankly I think even that is too narrow. I think that if I were for instance to start viciously slandering your mother using vile derogatory horrible words, then you would rightly construe that as "hate speech" even if my slander wasn't directed at a group of people.

    But you have half a point, many liberals will define "hate speech" conveniently to suit their partisan biases, e.g., "words that I disagree with that make me cry". They are wrong when they use the term "hate speech" in that manner. And people like you are wrong when you deny that the term even has any valid objective meaning at all. It is just more tribal bullshit.

  • wareagle||

    "Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation."
    so by this definition, any mention of white privilege or the patriarchy is, in fact, hate speech. Yet, neither is characterized as such. How come?

    And people like you are wrong when you deny that the term even has any valid objective meaning at all.
    The above example demonstrates that the term does NOT have any valid objective meaning since its application is purely partisan and almost exclusively from the left.

  • chemjeff||

    "how you engage in seeing crimethink in divergent opinions."

    NO ONE HERE is advocating for criminalizing Ann Coulter's speech. Not Robby, not me, not anyone. I have absolutely no problem with people exercising their rights to express divergent opinions. What I do have a problem with, are the claims mainly from Team Blue that divergent opinions should be silenced by force if necessary, AND the claims mainly from Team Red that those who defend free speech rights *also* have some obligation to defend those divergent opinions *on the merits*, or at least refrain from criticizing those opinions on the merits, "lest the Progs win".

    It is sad to see that we have reached a place where Robby can say something like "Ann Coulter has the right to say whatever hateful things she wants to say" and he gets beaten up on a libertarian website for a sentiment like that.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Hate speech is a pejorative term with which to paint whatever or whomever you don't agree with, just like labeling someone a "fascist," It is mostly subjective and nothing more than a half assed ad hominem effort to shut down a perceived opponent. Logic and rules of debate do not apply, it is whomever can yell the loudest, tweet the most, and get their bytes in the media to promote their side of things and to garner sympathy from sympathizers.

    Rep. Maxine Waters does it on a daily basis, and because she is not only a liberal but a black elderly woman she gets a pass from most of the media, because they would be scared shitless of doing otherwise and being labeled racist, misogynist, or ageist.

  • Real Books||

    It's not even crimethink anymore. It's crimefeel.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I would say that you begin to understand, but you don't. You only prattle on thinking you've made your point.

    There IS no such thing as 'hate speech'

    There IS NO rape culture in the US

    These are facts.

    When objecting to leftist censorship it is important to not concede their point.

    Thus, 'hate speech should be protected like all speech', capitulates to the notion that there IS 'hate speech'

    For you, a leftist, such capitulation is easy--you seek to destroy resistance to your hideous aims, so being here, shrieking leftist cant and convincing the soft-brained that this is 'libertarianism' fulfills one of your goals.

    Gods above, you want to expand the 'definition' of 'hate speech'.

    But for those of us who actually love liberty, such a capitulation would be a defeat and we can't allow that.

    There is no such thing as 'hate speech'.

  • ThomasD||

    "I don't care a whit about Ann Coulter. What i care about is this endless "have your cake and eat-it-too-ism", two-faced rhetorical bullshit, which on one hand pretends to defend speech-rights, and on the other hand wants to be seen as sympathizing with censors."

    A thousand times this. Never mind the attempts to hand wave it away.

    Robby has been called on it multiple times. He, and the editors plainly do not care.

  • chemjeff||

    You are exactly right. When an authoritarian wants to silence offensive speech, the correct knee-jerk reaction is to try to explain how the speech really isn't all that offensive. Do I have that right?

  • Azathoth!!||

    You don't get to silence speech. Any speech.

    If you don't want to hear something, don't listen.

  • ThomasD||

    No, not even close. But we already knew that.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That may be better than letting the authoritarian steal an intellectual base by conceding that speech he does not like is hateful.

  • GILMORE™||

    Do I have that right?

    No.

  • Ron||

    Gilmore gave the best argument

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Actually she is well educated, well researched, and makes strong arguments. She must not be part of your echo chamber.

  • GILMORE™||

    A seminal moment in "Look at how I sick-burned this dude on twitter"-journalism

  • GILMORE™||

  • Chipper Mourning Will Grigg||

  • Cyto||

    Joked that McVeigh should have blown up the NYT instead of the federal building. As an example of hate speech?

    I'm not familiar with contemporary Coulter... she used to be a sort of conservative-ish republican kinda troll-for-hire. Kinda like a milder version of James Carville in drag. Is there something more hate-speechy than this out there? Because that certainly doesn't justify the "Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech " signalling jab.

    Similar to Carville, her style was derisive and biting, but I don't remember her saying anything that could arguably be as hateful as a routine Maxine Waters polemic, so why all the "hate speech" labeling for her? Has she moved on to actual racist rhetoric at some point? I've given up on talking head shows with professional political trolls, so I don't run in to her any more. Enquiring minds want to know.

  • GILMORE™||

    look man, here's how it works =

    If you're "one of the good ones", you can pretty much say whatever hysterical shit you want, and no one will say boo.

    If you're not? Pearls will be clutched and people will say you're "beyond the pale".

  • maki||

    Robby, honestly, was this necessary? "But her speech, hateful though it may be, is not illegal." Your column, pandering though it is, is not hate speech either, but it comes close to it through its use of ad hominem. Try not to genuflect to your liberal friends in public. It's embarrassing.

  • damikesc||

    It's sad that the college, clearly, has no intention of punishing any students who misbehave at the speech.

    Why not simply state that no masks are allowed on campus during the speech? The pussy snowflakes won't do shit if you can see who they are.

    ...or allow Coulter's security goons to have free reign to crack skulls as needed.

  • damikesc||

    "Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech "

    Gee, why aren't Libertarians taken REMOTELY seriously?

  • chemjeff||

    Here's Ann Coulter at her finest:

    "There's a cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn't exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettos. When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved."

    Now, some might call that statement offensive. Some might even call it 'hate speech', insofar as it tars an entire group of people guilty of a horrible crime like child rape.

    But evidently, if a liberal calls it "hate speech", we non-liberals are supposed to circle the wagons around Ann Coulter and defend not just her right to say what she likes, but also to forbid any criticism of her legitimately offensive speech on its merits (or lack thereof). Do I have that right?

  • geo1113||

    You can say whatever you want, however you failed to find out if there is any truth to what Coulter is saying.

  • chemjeff||

    And thanks for proving my point.

  • geo1113||

    I don't see any proof.

  • E. Kline||

    But she's right.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    So Ann Coulter is just as stupid as the idiots who say there is a "rape culture" on American college campuses? Color me surprised. Distasteful, sure, but I don't really believe in "hate speech" as a separate category of speech. Circle my wagons around her? No, but I will circle the wagons around the college students who deserve to hear from whomever they want in their pursuit of knowledge.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Ann Coulter is just as stupid as the people who say there's a "rape culture" on college campuses. Still, its just speech.

  • Cyto||

    So here's the reed Coulter is hanging that dubious accusation on:

    In a 2011 GQ magazine story about a statutory rape case in Texas, the victim's illegal alien mother, Maria, described her own sexual abuse back in Mexico.

    "She was 5, she says, when her stepfather started telling her to touch him. Hand here, mouth there. The abuse went on and on, became her childhood, really. At 12, when she finally worked up the desperate courage to report the abuse and was placed in foster care, she says her mother begged her to recant — the family needed the stepdad's paycheck. So Maria complied. She was returned home, where her stepdad continued to molest her."

    Far from "I am woman, hear me roar," these are cultures where women help the men rape kids.

    She goes on to pull out another handful of anecdotes about women enabling child molesters.

    She's nuts. No doubt about that. You could certainly make the same argument about any state in the union by merely gleaning the family law ledgers.

    And hate speech? Well, the article is her own by line. And she is clearly trying to demagog an entire ethnic group as child molesters using a few anecdotes and some questionable opinions offered up by nameless "police in immigrant enclaves". So yup... I'd say that article fits the definition of hate speech.

  • Ron||

    wish i had time but there was a report that 80% of the women immigrants were raped while passing through Mexico. but i have to work now.

  • Calidissident||

    If you read the report, most of the rape is from gangs, coyotes, corrupt officials, etc. who control the border areas and crossing process taking advantage of the women who cross illegally. Assuming it's accurate (and it is interesting to note that conservatives are a lot less skeptical of studies and reports about the prevalence of rape when they implicate groups they don't like), it indicts those groups and indicates that the people controlling the illegal border crossing process tend to be assholes who take advantage of vulnerable women, which honestly shouldn't be that surprising. It's more than a bit of a stretch to go from there to "Latino culture in general is totally ok with child rape and it's a family affair." The fact that people are defending that comment just to argue that Robby's a secret prog who hates free speech because he criticized Ann Coulter is astounding.

  • E. Kline||

    "You could certainly make the same argument about any state in the union by merely gleaning the family law ledgers."

    Please do so, and don't be shocked when you do it and see how many of the perpetrators are hispanic.

  • GILMORE™||

    Do I have that right?

    no.

    if a liberal calls it "hate speech", we non-liberals are supposed to circle the wagons around Ann Coulter

    no.

    you're supposed to point out that "hate speech" doesn't actually exist as any objective, categorical thing.

    "Who" happens to be making the speech is entirely irrelevant, as is whether or not you agree or disagree at all with its sentiment. Anybody calling something "hate speech" is wrong, regardless of what it is they're referring to.

    i.e. someone could object to reading Hitler's speeches aloud, claiming that it is obviously "hate speech".

    Telling them that they are wrong to use that label is not a defense of Hitler. Its simply pointing out that no matter how 'hateful', there is still no category of speech that isn't still just "speech". "Hate" doesn't change speech into some magical new thing deserving of special rules.

    This is actually a pretty simple distinction that everyone else seems to grasp, but which you struggle with.

    You can return to your straw-man puppet-show now.

  • ||

    "Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech"

    God Robby. Every one of you cucks at Reasons are such fucking pussies. So when the lefty professors start chucking bike locks in ur neighborbood, u, u fucking pussy, are just gonna sit ur bitch ass in the sideline with ur smuggness and ur NAP while expecting the state do its job (in a fucking world where scotus says they dont have to protect u)?

    When rule of law breaks down, there arent any libertarians u fucking morons.

    /rant over

  • the other Jim||

    Not looking to defend Coulter here. But if her remark about blowing up the New York Times is now hate speech, should we also consider Madonna a trafficker in hate speech because she said she thought a lot about blowing up the White House after Trump was elected? Or how about Michael Moore, who after 9/11 said that the terrorists had killed the wrong people if they were mad about George W. Bush being elected? Will they also be shouted down by mobs if they try to speak on a college campus?

    Or are some animals more equal than others?

  • Zeb||

    You can consider whatever you want "hate speech" because it has no specific definition or legal meaning. If you think it's hateful, then go ahead and call it "hate speech" if that's what you want to do. No one is trying to stop you.

  • the other Jim||

    For the record, I think the concept of "hate speech" is stupid. Was simply observing the double standard of the left (and, apparently, Robby) in declaring what is or isn't hate speech.

  • Zeb||

    I agree that it's a stupid concept, even if it's not a legal one. But I was pointing out that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is "hate speech" as long as you aren't declaring ridiculous things like "hate speech isn't free speech" or agitating for laws limiting freedom of speech.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Coulter's history of engaging in hate speech might be a reason for students not to invite her to speak. But her speech, hateful though it may be, is not illegal. The Constitution does not exempt "hate speech" from First Amendment protection.

    Coulter can be annoying and wrong but I have rarely - if ever - heard her utter hate speech.

    The Hair and the rest of the Cosmotarians, are why they don't get my money anymore. Now, I just use their server space.

  • simplybe||

    Hate speech is unconstitutional unless it is being spouted by some Progressive or minority group. I personally don't care to hear hate speech coming out of the mouth of any ignorant person. Howard Dean has spouted his hate speech far to often on national TV to be making such a statement. Mr Dean you had your shot at the gold ring and you lost so now just shut the hell up.

  • Ron||

    Even this article assumes that Coulter speech is hate filled. Just because you disagree with someones opinion does not make that speech hatefull and that is why so called hate speech is protected. I think everything Bill Mar and Hillary Clinton say is hate speech and should be outlawed see how easy that is. Pretty soon all speech is hate as we have seen on university campuses lately

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I think the Progs have the naive belief that they will always be the ones who define what "hate speech" is. Warnings that they may find themselves on the receiving end tend to fall on deaf ears.

  • Ron||

    Also note the university has moved Coulters speech to finals week making it useless since everyone will be studying. May has well put her in a box where no one can hear her and claim that she is being allowed to speak.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I've never understood why the Progs get so wrapped around the axle about Coulter. Who is she, really? She isn't the President or some powerful government official. She can't make anybody do anything, no matter what she says. And I can't buy the idea that she's an important molder of public opinion or a kingmaker or anything of the sort. Yes, she has a fan base, but that's just people who already agree with the stuff she says. I don't see how she's moved the needle on any important public debate.

    There's nothing wrong with criticizing her. I just don't see how she is worthy of all the fear the Left exudes about her.

  • ThomasD||

    She is quite useful insofar as she puts paid to the lie that the institutional left, as exemplified by the administration of UC Berkeley, is supportive of free speech for all.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She's good at calling them out for what they are. And to progtards, that cannot be.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    I just don't see how she is worthy of all the fear the Left exudes about her

    The Left hasn't been able to cow her into silence and she still gets prominent media blab gigs. You're right, she's not worth the heartburn the Left gets from her, but she represents someone on the right who treats her political opponents with the same open, utter contempt that the Left holds for those who don't share their ideology, and not only gets away with it, she makes a decent living doing it.

    The Left's ultimate goal is to crush and silence anyone who dares push back against their narrative, and Coulter's relative success is a continual frustration to them since they can't shut her up and destroy her life like they can ordinary citizens such as wedding cake bakers.

  • Glide||

    Banning "hate speech" is inherently impossible, given that it is a made-up word defined completely subjectively.

    Ask Ted Nugent to define hate speech, then ask Melissa Harris Perry. You'll get two completely different definitions. Of course it is pop cultural "common sense" that MHP is right, but that's just because she's more liberal, which is a retarded way to define legal terms.

  • XM||

    Please stop with these caveats. If you have the right to free speech, the debate is over.

    I've experienced road rage incidents in which some random white guy flip me the bird for no apparent reason. It's infuriating. But if I saw the cops bludgeon him to death, I would be even more horrified. If Shikha skipped along and told me "he had the right to free speech, but we could still discuss that he had hateful positions" I would walk away from her.

    "His or her position might be hateful....." is irrelevant and a non starter, especially for pundits who aren't "haters" in the sense the media uses the word. Do you hear libs say "that person might be black, but we should still include him for the sake of inclusion"? If speech is protected but opposed by any one group, the content of the speech should be irrelevant unless it involves calls for violence.

  • Africanis||

    Blah Blah Blah, just waiting for the Battle of Berkeley 2. Maybe the alt right fighters will cut off the retreat this time.
    Any beating Antifa receives is well deserved.

  • Longtobefree||

    Howard Dean's speech is hate speech. Now will he shut up?

  • ||

    Howie is one of the leading reasons the Democrats have lost 1000 seats nationally, a dozen governorships, then the House, then the Senate and finally the White House. No programs to move the country forward, nothing but snark, divisiveness and now street violence.

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem with idiots like Dean is they fail to grasp that all speech, even offensive speech is protected. The only speech restricted is that intended to incite violence, threats of harm to specific people or speech that is a danger to others, such as yelling fire in a theater when none exists. In addition, what exactly is "hate speech"? (that is rhetorical). We all know the left defines hate speech as any point of view expressed that they disagree with or is counter to their political ideology. The larger and more dangerous aspect of Dean's claim is any prohibition against "hate speech" means the government is then permitted to censor and silence any point of view it deems "dangerous" or not "mainstream" ( sound familiar?) Progressives always try to hide their true intentions by using phrases that sound much more benign than their actual goal. Sensible gun control? Dean is a moron and that is the main reason he is so dangerous.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online