Snowflake Editorial Board At UC San Diego: Anything We Don't Like 'Tarnishes First Amendment' Rights

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: May 14, 2016 3:00 PM
Snowflake Editorial Board At UC San Diego: Anything We Don't Like 'Tarnishes First Amendment' Rights

So, you know about the pro-Donald Trump chalkings that have been occurring all over America’s college campuses, right? They’ve turned up at the University of Kansas and Emory University, which threw the delicate snowflakes on campus into a conniption fit. Whether it was students wanting to Make America Great Again, or seeing what happens when they troll progressives on campus, is irrelevant—this is a classic exercise in free speech. And if it antagonizes liberals on campus, it’s a social good. It’s about time progressives know that there are other opinions besides this authoritarian ethos of shutting down things that they feel is hate speech or offensive. Life doesn’t work that way. At the University of California at San Diego, the school newspaper’s editorial board apparently thinks otherwise—saying that anything they find offensive “tarnishes" free speech.[emphasis mine]

While it is true that the First Amendment prevents Congress — and, in recent years, public institutions — from punishing or preventing free speech, it does not protect these individuals from private retaliation, so long as this retaliation is within the boundaries of the law. Furthermore, having the right to speak freely does not automatically justify doing so. Claiming that offended persons should therefore learn to accept or tolerate the Trump chalkers’ messages simply because their messages are protected under the First Amendment is not a valid justification; people offended by the messages of Trump followers have every right to be angry, frustrated and hurt by those statements given the context in which they are used, and they are allowed to express their anger without needing to temper themselves for the sake of respecting “free speech.”

[…]

These chalkers hide behind messages that are hateful, targeting and intolerant, all the while claiming that it is in the name of heightening political discussion at UCSD.

[…]

If our campus’ Trump supporters truly believe in properly endorsing their candidate, and if they wish to be taken seriously in the political forum, they should openly protest without resorting to targeting individuals or writing racist statements. This means expressing their opinions openly, clearly and in the light of day. Trump supporters should also be prepared to debate just what makes Donald Trump so enticing to them. As long as those partaking in campus chalkings rely solely on xenophobia and racism to make their statements, as long as they refrain from putting forth political reasons for endorsement and as long as they remain anonymous, such statements fail to exhibit free speech and instead tarnish it.

Well, the institutional left does know a thing or two about retaliation, that’s for sure. But let’s get real here, folks. Pro-Trump chalkings aren’t akin to drawing a swastika, writing racial epithets, or burning the American flag. They’re not. Even if someone did that—it’s they’re right to do so as long as they don’t advocate disorder or violence in the process of the act. It may be offensive, free speech can be horrifically offensive (and yes, it can be wrong), but no American needs justifiable need clause for expressing one’s opinions. Again, this is just a faux-regulatory construct for liberals to shut down free speech. You can say what you want, but you’re not justified unless it furthers the discussion in a way we see fit. You can say what you want, but we’ll retaliate against you. You can say what you want, but it’s not really protected under the First Amendment. Wrong on all counts, kids. You have to tolerate the abominable.

I do it every day reading what you and your ilk are doing to our institutions of learning. “Having the right to speak freely does not automatically justify doing so”? What is this crap? Things that are instances of constitutionally protected free speech aren’t really protected? We’re really getting into the realm of fantasy here. Then again, we’re dealing with people who think that it’s perfectly fine to accept a white guy as a Chinese woman. In Sweden, a Caucasian women had students actually think about whether it’s fine to see her as a) over six-foot (she’s not) and b) Japanese. So, no, I’ll read what these precious snowflakes have to say. I won’t lust for retaliation because they have a different opinion than mine. But I’ll also recognize that we’re not having a serious conversation as well. When you can’t tell someone that they’re not over six-foot, Japanese, Chinese, or seven-years old when they’re clearly none of those things—rationale goes out the window.