In the liberal push to dismantle everything that the founders thought would be best for our country, the LA Times has decided that it’s time for the first amendment to go. This decision was brought on by the horror of the Supreme Court’s decision to let a band keep its name, which was considered offensive. The twist is that the name is considered to be offensive to their ethnicity.
In other words, the SCOTUS decided that they’d be allowed to make fun of themselves, and the liberals don’t like it.
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.
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.
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 21, 2017
Can I just say, whoever says that someone can’t poke fun at themselves is walking on pretty thin ice. You’d think that to be hate speech it would have to have the intention of causing pain to someone, and unless these band members are real gluttons for punishment, I’m guessing the name doesn’t cause them any pain.
In case you missed it, the LA Times piece in question is actually called “The Case For Restricting Hate Speech” which is kind of like saying “The Case For Restricting FREE Speech”. Here is the portion where they discuss the reasons that the founders got it all wrong:
In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. 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.
I hate to disagree with the expert here, but surely we are supposed to be people who are tough enough to stand up to someone else’s’ word. I know that words can be hurtful, but they’re also very useful, and if people start splitting hairs about what we can and can’t say, it will never end. We’ll be in the same boat as North Korea with the inability to contradict the government without fear of retribution.
So the situation is that arguably the 8 smartest guys and gals in the country said that we shouldn’t be restricting the name of a band that wants’s to make fun of itself, but the LA Times thinks that people should get to control other people based on how they feel. I’m not a social expert, and I can’t tell the future, but I can just about guarantee you that if we give in to this it will end very badly.
The Supreme Court did its job and upheld the Constitution just the way it’s supposed to. It was an 8-0 decision, that means there really wasn’t even a debate over it. If liberals and the LA Times thinks they know better than the SCOTUS they’re welcome to try and appeal it again, but until then we can still make fun of ourselves without being throw in jail. Which I suppose qualifies as a win these days.