Thinking strategically about free speech and violence
Phenomenal article identifying the distinction between legitimacy and efficacy. Don’t agree with all of the conclusions, but well worth reading.
Why offensive speech is valuable
Particularly relevant given recent controversies at Princeton.
In the wake of a University of Oklahoma fraternity caught on camera singing an abhorrent song about African Americans, a predictable assortment of critics of free speech have argued that the First Amendment should not protect offensive and racist speech. They are wrong. Offensive speech should not only be protected by the First Amendment, it should be seen as a valuable part of a free society.
When not to use Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Great piece by Ken White:
Holmes’ quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. This post is not about fisking Sarah Chayes; her column deserves it, but I will leave it to another time. This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.
New legislation to ban any speech that could incite violence against a government official
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.” ~Thomas Jefferson
A Democratic lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or images that could be interpreted as inciting violence toward members of Congress or federal officials.