MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Some Temple University Administrators Want Marc Lamont Hill Fired For 'Hate Speech'

"Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

MLHOuzounova/Splash/SplashNews/NewscomLast week, CNN cut ties with Marc Lamont Hill, a professor at Temple University and leftist pundit for the network, after he made comments about Israel that some consider anti-Semitic. Now some officials at Temple University want to do the same thing.

Hill's comment came at a November 28 United Nations meeting, where he called for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea"—a phrase sometimes used by groups, such as Hamas, that support the destruction of Israel. Hill later apologized, insisting that he did not favor violence or an end to Israel's existence, but the CNN honchos were unmoved.

CNN is under no obligation to employ Hill; his bosses can fire him because they don't like his opinions. The same is not true for Temple, a state-related research university in Philadelphia, where Hill has tenure. Nevertheless, Patrick O'Connor, the chairman of Temple's board, tells Philly.com that "no one is happy with [Hill's] comments." More concerning, O'Connor—described as a prominent lawyer in the article—also said, "Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

This distinction between "hate speech" and "free speech" is nonsense. No Supreme Court decision has ever recognized hate speech as a separate, unprotected category of speech, and any attempt to regulate hate speech at a public university would assuredly be struck down as unconstitutional.

But O'Connor sounds like he wants Hill gone. "We're going to look at what remedies we have," he tells Philly.com. Temple President Richard Englert said in a statement that some people view Hill's remark as a "perceived threat." And a trustee, Leonard Barrack, has accused Hill of using coded language to call for the destruction of Israel.

Temple administrators should stand down immediately. They can criticize Hill all they want, but anti-Israel statements are protected speech, hateful or not.

This incident is a useful reminder that attempts to limit the scope of permissible speech on campus due to nebulous safety concerns—"hate speech," "perceived threats," etc.—will always backfire on the left. The administrative doublespeak deployed by universities in service of keeping Ben Shapiro off campus can and will be weaponized against people like Hill.

At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here. If you were outraged about Twitter (briefly) banning Jesse Kelly, or The Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne, you ought to have something to say about CNN firing Hill, too.

Photo Credit: Ouzounova/Splash / SplashNews/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.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    People's reaction to Anti-Israel comments are so helter-skelter. It seems almost random if people get worked up about it.

  • StackOfCoins||

    It's almost like Israel has a entire online wing devoted to rooting out perceived antisemitism...

  • Wise Old Fool||

    I don't it seems fairly predictable to me, dems seem to favor siding with Palestinians and calling the jews in israel apartheid. Republicans seem to have the opposite opinion and neither side will listen to the other or listen to facts or compromises to help fix the situation.

  • ||

    Well, this is the environment the left chose.

    They made their bed. Now they must lie in it.

    Look up Alessandro Strumia as an example.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    "At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here."

    Why is it that conservatives are constantly leaned upon to be the voice of reason when leftist idiocy runs amok? It's like clockwork around here, and yet every opportunity to bash rational conservatives with blanket statements is said with glee and zero backlash.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Well... except for the comment section. I'll be holding my breathe waiting for an article about conservatives being more reasonable, despite it being painfully obvious

  • Egypt Steve||

    Seriously? In the age of Drumpf, who expects conservatives to even know the meaning of the word "reason," much less stand up for it?

  • buybuydandavis||

    TDS

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, yes, the.moment you said 'Drumpf' it was obvious you had something pithy and profound to say.

  • Heraclitus||

    Wrong. This is good ol' fashioned censorship. We went through this with the Red Scare and McCarthyism. The left did not invent this. The history of censorship is littered with leftists getting sacked by the right.

  • Trumptard||

    Not in recent memory. We are talking about today.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The Red Scare and McCarthyism were good things, based on reality. McCarthy was in fact an American hero, albeit a flawed one.

    He was rightly trying to stop the horrible turns that ensued after his time.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Yes the right is pure as driven snow on this matter and competely reasonable about what should happen in Israel as long as it's what they think should happen. Conservatives are always paragons of well thought out arguments and working on reasonable compromises.

  • ||

    "At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here. If you were outraged about Twitter (briefly) banning Jesse Kelly, or The Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne, you ought to have something to say about CNN firing Hill, too."

    I think it goes without saying they don't stand for this but they also can point out....TOLD YOU SO.

    As for Hill's comments specifically. I feel he did know exactly what he was saying. Everyone knows who pays attention to the region 'throwing Israel (and the Jews) into the sea' is a call to action among Arab countries.

    And if he's literate then he would have avoided it. But he didn't. Because that was likely the message he was trying to get across. I think we all know left-wingers aren't exactly fans of Israel. Some even feel it should be destroyed.

    His explanation, moreover, reminds me of Roger Waters. He talks about loving everyone and then rails against Trump; which means he rails against people who voted for him. Love my ass.

  • Bowerick Wowbagger||

    "I think it goes without saying they don't stand for this but they also can point out....TOLD YOU SO."


    I'm certainly not conservative and I pretty much feel exactly this. I don't think Hill should be fired from Temple over these remarks.

    However, I do hope the left continues to attack themselves when situations like this happens....my feeling is if they attack themselves enough at some point their eyes will have to be opened and see the idiocy in their position...no?

  • ||

    Exactly how I see it as well. You have a case where Peterson's colleagues tried to get him fired.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    They won't learn, but it's fun to see them eat their own.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Robby is the King of Intended Consequences.

    He also thought tearing down historical markers and monuments would never get away from the social elite Lefties.

  • ||

    If he did he's naive and not paying close enough attention to history.

    Up here they're looking to remove the statues of Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir John A. MacDonald.

    Give them an inch, they'll take a foot.

    It's all about power.

    Which is why you should never consent to their totalitarian disposition.

  • ||

    I should mention the former was a Liberal PM and the later a Conservative and our first PM.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What did they do?

  • ||

    They were white and are dead. Indians and imperialism and shit like that.

    https://bit.ly/2BOldXN

    No, seriously. It's along the same line of logic we see with any illiterate SJW progressive with regards to this issue.

    http://owensoundhub.org/opinio.....moval.html

    But people support this nonsense.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ah. We have that down here, or so I understand.

  • RoyMo||

    It is do to the scheming of dangerous persons such as MacDonald and Laurier that Trump isn't their president as well. Uniting Canada, building the CP, preventing Minnesota from invading Manitoba. All red blooded Americans should be supporting the repudiation of such enemies of North American Unity.

  • RoyMo||

    do=due

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sir MacDonald should be remembered forever, if only for siring Norm.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Which is why you should never consent to their totalitarian disposition."

    It is a righteous thing to openly beat a progressive in the street, with impunity. Preferably with a cane.

  • DiegoF||

    What, have you not heard Peter Beinart? Mr. HIll's expertise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could run circles around you and any other of his detractors. So stop scoffing at his proclamations of ignorance.

  • ||

    Wow. They really know how to over rate themselves.

    Beinart made a silly blunder there imo.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    He used an inflammatory phrase to call attention to injustice. MLH is an idiot who should have been fired from CNN for all of the dumb things he's said about white people over the years. That this was they consider to be a deal-breaker speaks volumes about what speech they consider to be offensive.

  • itsjustbob||

    " I think we all know left-wingers aren't exactly fans of Israel. Some even feel it should be destroyed."

    I have always wondered why so many Jews are lefties?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This incident is a useful reminder that attempts to limit the scope of permissible speech on campus due to nebulous safety concerns—"hate speech," "perceived threats," etc.—will always backfire on the left.

    It backfires on everyone who tries it. We live in an age of instant gratification, with little regard to future consequences.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It only a bad thing to the extent that it backfires on the Left.

    Leftist power is all that counts.

  • DajjaI||

    Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to ALL its inhabitants
    You shall have the same law for the stranger as for yourself

    This is the word of G_d and is what he should have said.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Temple University. The PA state school you go to when you can't get into Millersville or Kutztown University.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    End all federal and state involvement in education. Problem solved.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup.

    If kids had to work and pay for their educations, they would go to college to learn rather than waste their time with virtue signalling.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    At least Hill didn't endorse "Open Borders for Israel." THAT alt-right nonsense would have been genuinely hateful, and probably grounds for losing his job(s).

    This distinction between "hate speech" and "free speech" is nonsense. No Supreme Court decision has ever recognized hate speech as a separate, unprotected category of speech, and any attempt to regulate hate speech at a public university would assuredly be struck down as unconstitutional.

    For a different perspective on this, see Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky's piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #LibertariansAgainstHateSpeech
    #BringBackBerlatsky

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...More, the rash of recent stories about sexual harassment in the workplace provide stark examples of how hostile words or technically non-violent actions — like men exposing themselves —can create an intolerable environment, forcing women out of industries and leading to long-term stress and trauma"

    Wow, from words to actions, just like that.

    BTW, exposing oneself is already a crime and not protected by free speech. But otherwise a great article justifying a roll back of the Enlightenment, OBLT.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I take it explaining that there is no such thing as 'hate speech', will get you banned too?

  • BigT||

    That IS hate speech. Like saying there is little racism is racist.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If the outrage mill is going to run continuously, it needs grist.

  • Ron||

    If Hills remarks can be proven to overlap his classroom teachings then you can fire him otherwise you can't

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    OFF TOPIC

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on wasteful military spending:

    $21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions "could not be traced, documented, or explained."

    $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T.

    That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.

    And that's before our premiums.

    Of course as a Koch / Reason libertarian I disagree with democratic socialists on many economic issues. But she's absolutely right to call out 21 trillion in Pentagon waste. (And she's cool because she wants to #AbolishICE.)

    #LibertariansForOcasioCortez

  • Marshal||

    But she's absolutely right to call out 21 trillion in Pentagon waste.

    F'd up accounting does not prove waste.

  • Rich||

    Doesn't it prove wasted spending on accountants?

  • Marshal||

    They would tell you it proves not enough spending on accountants - but it seems unlikely that reaches 21 trillion.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    21 Trillion over what time period?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    I believe it was in regards to the Pentagon's first ever audit which was auditing 2.7 trillion in Pentagon assets. I am just guessing that Alexandria messed up the numbers.

    DOD Audit

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I am just guessing that Alexandria messed up the numbers."

    I don't know whether to call you racist or sexist for that.

    Intersectionality is hard.

  • Dillinger||

    no fraud over at Medicare...

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Since it's Ocasio-Cortez I wouldn't give anything she says any credibility, even if she stood up to proclaim that the sun rises in the east.

  • BigT||

    Prof, your new office is between the restroom and the boiler in the basement. And you are now sitting on the discipline committee, orientation committee, and parents outreach committee. Oh, and your parking pass has expired.

  • Eddy||

    And we're taking your Springline stapler.

  • ThomasD||

    A tale of two headlines.

    When discussing attitudes towards Jeff Flake's latest actions it hatred, no scare quotes necessary.

    When the topic is Lamont Hill's statements it scare quotes all the way.

  • ThomasD||

    it's hatred...

  • Zeb||

    I think "hate speech" always deserves scare quotes.

  • ThomasD||

    How about we call Hill's speech by what it really is?

    Bigotry.

    But that would tend to put paid to Suave's whole argument.

  • Marshal||

    This incident is a useful reminder that attempts to limit the scope of permissible speech on campus due to nebulous safety concerns—"hate speech," "perceived threats," etc.—will always backfire on the left.

    The fact that he still has the job seems to prove the hate speech tactic hasn't backfired at all much less "always".

    At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here.

    Way to work in that conservatives are the problem Robbie: WAPO beckons.

    If you were outraged about Twitter (briefly) banning Jesse Kelly, or The Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne, you ought to have something to say about CNN firing Hill, too.

    Make them live by their own rules. Applying these rules to Hill causes uninvolved progs to defend him. Their expression of such blatant hypocrisy undermines them so why would anyone choose a tactic which allows them to conceal it?

    Progs will never change the rules until we raise the cost of keeping them. Why would they when the current practice is to apply the rules only to those they hate.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    How about challenging the lefties? "If you are upset about CNN firing Hill, you ought to have something to say about Twitter banning Jesse Kelly, or the Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne." Of course, that would put at least some responsibility for the rhetorical impasse on the left, which Robby never wants to do. Face it; we are a polarized society and nobody, not even Robby is willing or able to do anything about it.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here. If you were outraged about Twitter (briefly) banning Jesse Kelly, or The Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne, you ought to have something to say about CNN firing Hill, too."

    As someone who is long since tired of the outrage junkies of both sides venting their outrage I don't care about this. But Robbie's last paragraph brings up a philosophical question.

    Kelly is still banned, Williamson is still terminated, and Rosanne is still cancelled, at least as to Rosanne herself. Is "fairness" consistency of opinion or is it consistency of outcome? I think Robbie has confused fairness and objectivity. And expecting the political zealous to be objective is like expecting a pig to do calculus.

  • Robby Soave||

    Kelly is not still banned.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

    To paraphrase William Brennan, "I cannot define it, but I know it when I [hear] it"

  • Eddy||

    I think that was Potter Stewart.

  • Eddy||

    Look, Wikipedia agrees!

    https://bit.ly/2avHsFh

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I stand corrected; I was indeed Stewart [I could take your word for it without you're going all Wikipedia about it]

  • DiegoF||

    I thought it was he who said, "Hoes, take off your clothes; hoes, get naked."

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Well what's a hoe supposed to do?

  • Rich||

    "Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

    "I hate people conflating the two."

  • DiegoF||

    As you are free to do.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    And here's Robby bravely standing against free association.

    From the rest of his writing I somehow don't think he would provide the same fig leaf to PP members or well, anyone on the right (since by definition to not be named they are all far alt-right) but Antifa and and the rest of the marxist cohort get a pass. I think my shocked face is under my checkbook and I can't seem to find either over Reason stances like this.

  • Matthew Chalice||

    "And here's Robby bravely standing against free association."

    Public university, Jeeves. (Are you Seth Mandel by any chance?)

  • Dillinger||

    >>>"Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

    hate speech is over-feared. and still free.

  • Real American||

    I hope he gets fired and some enterprising federal attorney dusts off 18 U.S. Code § 241 and puts the entire board in jail.

  • MattXIV||

    Characterizing this as backfiring on the "left" is misunderstanding the nature of the campus speech problem. The censorship is not in service of a generic leftward push, but rather to have the boundaries of a campus politics Overton window defined by administrators and activists enforced. This window is far to the left of the general US politics one, so the practical effect is primarily felt by right wingers, but for the people creating these policies, the fact that some of the nuttier left wingers get shut down too is a feature not a bug.

  • Pepys the Cat||

    But that's the part you are missing/don't get. Their control results in outcomes like this, which make their control look deranged.

    That is what is meant by "backfiring" on them. They have control and it ends up in a very stupid place.

    Also, enough with the Overton window stupidity.

  • Ecoli||

    Mark L Hill is not "one of the nuttier left wingers". He is "alt-right" (whatever that is) when compared to many on the academic left.

  • Sigivald||

    "Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different"

    We don't understand First Amendment jurisprudence, the Constitution, liberal [classical] norms, or anything like them!

  • Weygand||

    "At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here. If you were outraged about Twitter (briefly) banning Jesse Kelly, or The Atlantic terminating Kevin Williamson, or ABC cancelling Roseanne, you ought to have something to say about CNN firing Hill, too."

    Rotsa Ruck with that. But why should they? This is just the inevitable outcome of the SJW Free Speech Committee which must eventually consume itself.

    To summarize: F them and F that.

  • Ecoli||

    Remember Rick Mehta?

    "Mehta was outspoken both on campus and online about a range of contentious issues including decolonization, immigration and gender politics, garnering both supporters and opposition.

    He came under fire for saying multiculturalism is a scam, denying the wage gap between men and women, and dismissing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a vehicle for "endless apologies and compensation."

    Why not fire Mark Lamont? IMHO, every Gender Studies, Race studies, Victim Studies, as well as most sociology departments in every University in North America should be abolished. Just think of how much Starbucks would save in labor costs for their baristas!

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Hoisted... petard... etc.

  • Alcibiades||

    Big win out of the ninth circuit:

    https://www.yaf.org/news/yaf-wins-landmark
    -free-speech-lawsuit-uc-berkeley-to-pay-70000
    -and-rescind-unconstitutional-policies/

  • Ecoli||

    Woo hoo!

  • DesparateReasoning||

    Just because no one yet has: Here's a great example of Reason's disgusting double standard regarding coverage of Right Vs. Left. This guy is very Left wing, so he gets all kinds of latitude over whether what he said was really racist, or whether he really meant it. There is literally zero throat clearing over what Lamont has said in the past or how we need to defend him regardless of his disgusting views (which again, if this was a Right winger, we'd get a deep dive into every terrible thing they have said or done and Lamont has a long career of making race-baiting statements that are typical of Leftists).

    To be clear, this article is written exactly how I think these type of topics should be handled. What needs to be changed is the very different handling of anyone Right of center.

  • crufus||

    He was fired for speaking out against Israel, a country that somehow has support from both the left and right and the media, even though they have been oppressing Palestinian people for about 70 years.

    The media and politicians have been successful at equating opposition to Israel's policies with antisemitism.

  • Benitacanova||

    I don't think they've been all that successful considering how many jews "ally" with muslims, who seek destruction of the jewish state.

  • JeremyR||

    It's anti-semitism because the same people complain about the treatment of Palestinians don't complain about other oppressed minorities in the same region - the Kurds most notably, but also the Copts in Egypt

    Especially ironic since the main Kurdish resistance group (the PKK) is leftist, not religious based

  • BigT||

    "oppressing Palestinian people for about 70 years"

    Haha haha.....making them citizens and protecting their holy sites is super oppressive

  • Rich||

  • Heraclitus||

    I realize folks at reason are dying to say "we told you so" as if this is some morality tale about things backfiring on the left. Just a little bit of history though will help us all realize that even if the left was not censorious as of late of hate speech that this would still be happening. We have a tradition in this country of banishing and censoring people for their political views. The Red Scare and McCarthyism come to mind. The left did not invent using politics to silence.

  • Penrose21||

    OK, but the sins of the past are not nearly as concerning and pertinent as those occurring right now. We can't change the past but we should learn from it and endeavor to stop the growth of censorship that is now flourishing, primarily by the left, and the outrageous double standard by the leftist politicians, leftist main stream media, leftist social media, and leftists in general. Maybe conservatives learned (what libertarians have always known) from the McCarthy hearings, while the left apparently has not.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Communism was a worldwide conspiracy to enslave mankind.

    Defeating that conspiracy was the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century. Maybe ever.

  • DiegoF||

    Would we really expect anything less from (((Temple))) University?

  • Juice||

    It's right there in the name!

  • Juice||

    "free Palestine from the river to the sea"

    Word for word directly from Hitler's speeches.

  • Uncle Jay||

    America will only be a free country with free speech when it eliminates and censors speech that is contrary to whims and wishes of obvious betters oppressing us.
    After all, if we're too stupid to think for ourselves, then we're all too stupid to talk without someone smarter than us controlling what we say.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep. Our only real freedom are the chains that bind us.

  • Kerr Mudgeon||

    Spot on.

  • ax a nigga||

    For me, "Free Speech" is like sex. I don't think about it until I'm not getting any.

  • ax a nigga||

    For me, "Free Speech" is like sex. I don't think about it until I'm not getting any.

  • Barry Gold||

    "attempts to limit the scope of permissible speech on campus due to nebulous safety concerns—"hate speech," "perceived threats," etc.—will always backfire on the left."

    Everything after "backfire" is superfluous. It doesn't matter who wants to censor speech: left, right, center, Marxist, Neonazi, etc. Free speech is free speech. Period.

  • Penrose21||

    Of course, but the left has been the group that has been banning what they consider to be "hate speech" far more often than any other group. Not only do the left-leaning universities prohibit conservatives from speaking, but leftist agitators show up to riot and engage in violence to ensure conservatives do not have a venue. Even that once great bastion of free speech, the ACLU, has turned to the dark side and abandoned its once noble cause. This is the truly disturbing thing about the left.

  • dpbisme||

    Hill is a Racist and a Leftist and the only reason you can justify firing him for the CNN thing is that Conservatives have been fired for less.

    That being said, this is FRIGGING CRAZY.

    I do not like the guy and what he says just about everyday but there is no proof he understood the phrase was the same as calling for Israel's Destruction and it was Anti-Jewish.

    The guy is an idiot, My guess he did not have a clue.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "but there is no proof he understood the phrase was the same as calling for Israel's Destruction and it was Anti-Jewish."

    So you give him credit for the Dipshit Defense. Let's assume just for shits and giggles that Hill pays at least passing attention to Mideast politics. He would certainly have come across this phrase, assuredly coming from the mouth of some prominent PLO spokesman. How could he not? So, you've played your ace and it went over like the Joker card. Try again. Better yet, don't bother.

  • wagnert in atlanta||

    "Free speech is one thing. Hate speech is entirely different."

    Hate speech is speech I hate. What's so difficult about that?

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Gee , calling for freedom , and by implication : equality for all , in a historically defined region , until partitioned into a theocracy and occupied territories and refugee camps by the UN , is now hate speech ?

  • BigT||

    No, it's stupid, like your comment. Calling for the taking of another group's lawful property is potentially violent.

  • JeremyR||

    It wasn't hate speech. It was however calling for Israel to be destroyed and replaced by a Palestinian state, which is arguably advocating violence

  • Rockabilly||

    There is no such thing as 'hate speech.'

    that is all

  • dangfitz||

    I've also never gotten how SCOTUS/The Feds can distinguish between "political speech", "commercial speech", and any other kind of speech. If "Congress Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...", then from where does the Federal Government get the power to define what "kinds" of speech get covered, or even to say that there ARE kinds of speech?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Simple: no branch of the government can sleep comfortably having said at some critical point in the day that something is not within their Constitutional power to do. Not since Lincoln, anyway.

  • Penrose21||

    We know the left, including leftist-owned media and social media such as twitter and facebook, has an extreme double standard when it comes to what is classified as "hate" or prohibited speech. But it seems a double standard by the judicial branch (at least the left-leaning portion of it-9th circuit comes to mind) to uphold banning Shapiro and Milo while probably calling firing Hill unconstitutional. All of the universities involved receive government/taxpayer funds in one way or another and all instances involve the issue of free speech. Of the speakers, I would say that Shapiro's would be considered the least "hateful", followed by Milo and then Hill.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here. "
    i.e.
    "Everyone on the Right, assume the position and Cuck!"

    "Fairness" is the same rules for everyone. A blonde fellow would have been immediately canned.

  • Leslie the Bard||

    Heheheheh. It's such fun to see a Leftist "hoist by his own petard"! Still, libertarians should defend him on the grounds of freedom of speech. ...And wouldn't it make Lamont squirm if all those "right-wingers" defended him!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    CNN is under no obligation to employ Hill; his bosses can fire him because they don't like his opinions. The same is not true for Temple, a state-related research university in Philadelphia, where Hill has tenure.

    Quite the opposite: when you accept government employment, you ought to be willing to accept restrictions on your first amendment rights as part of employment; if you don't like it, work in the private sector.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    At the same time, I would like to see more conservatives stand up for fairness here.

    "Fairness" is that you should STFU on political issues if the tax payers pay your salary.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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