SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Murray, controversial author of The Bell Curve, which promoted links between intelligence and race, was shouted down by protesters at Middlebury College last Thursday. PBS reports:
Murray had been invited by Middlebury's student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. [...] Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so. [...]
After the students chanted for about 20 minutes, college officials announced that the lecture would not take place but that Murray would go to another location, which the college didn't name, and have a discussion with a Middlebury faculty member — livestreamed back to the original lecture site.
According to Middlebury officials, after Murray and the professor who interviewed him for the livestream attempted to leave the location in a car, some protesters surrounded the car, jumped on it, pounded on it and tried to prevent the car from leaving campus.
Other sources note that political science professor Allison Stanger, who agreed to moderate the discussion, was attacked while accompanying Murray to the car, ultimately requiring treatment at a hospital for neck injuries caused by protesters pushing her and pulling her hair.
Murray himself later gave an account of his experience on the AEI blog. He emphasized that Middlebury's administration and staff displayed in exemplary ways their encouragement of free speech:
Middlebury's stance has been exemplary. The administration agreed to host the event. President Patton did not cancel it even after a major protest became inevitable. She appeared at the event, further signaling Middlebury's commitment to academic freedom. The administration arranged an ingenious Plan B that enabled me to present my ideas and discuss them with Professor Stanger even though the crowd had prevented me from speaking in the lecture hall. I wish that every college in the country had the backbone and determination that Middlebury exhibited.
But Murray notes that the outcome was very different from his previous controversial appearances:
Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do such and such. It is agreed that after the allotted time, they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest.
Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the protesters, but, for the first time in my experience, the protesters would not accept any time limits. [...] In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed.
The form of the protest has been widely condemned even by those who vehemently disagree with Murray, as in the piece by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic that claims "something has gone badly wrong on the campus left." He argues strongly that "Liberals must defend the right of conservative students to invite speakers of their choice, even if they find their views abhorrent."
Meanwhile, student protesters have responded with their own account, disclaiming the hair-pulling incident as unintentional and "irresponsible" but condemning the Middlebury administration for their "support of a platform for white nationalist speech." They further claimed "peaceful protest was met with escalating levels of violence by the administration and Public Safety, who continually asserted their support of a dangerous racist over the well-being of students."
Personal note: My take on all of this is that the actual subject of Murray's Middlebury talk has been lost in the media coverage, namely his 2012 book Coming Apart, which (ironically) is a detailed discussion of the problems created by a division of the intellectual elite from the white working class. He explicitly dilutes his previous connections of social problems with a black underclass by noting that many of the same issues plague poor white communities. While his argument is still based on problematic assertions about intelligence and IQ, the topic of his book seems very relevant given recent political events and issues of class division. There's some sort of profound irony in a bunch of students at an elite school refusing to allow a debate on the causes and results of division between elite intellectuals and the (white) working class. I personally may think Murray's scholarship is shoddy and his use of statistics frequently misleading (or downright wrong), but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:20PM (23 children)
but I don't see how that justifies the kind of threats and intimidation tactics shown at this protest.
Why?
Many people joke about how they would go back in time and kill Hitler or some other tyrant if they had a time machine, and then they'd be hailed a hero. Clearly, murder is silly, but we're clearly in the midst of a tumultuous time both politically and socially, and guess who won the Presidency? He's not "literally Hitler," but he is extremely provocative and has factually brought white supremacists into broad daylight: How long until Jim Crow rises again? Don't laugh-- remember how you thought in 2015 when Trump announced his Presidency, "Oh, it can't happen here!" If you *knew* where the world was headed in 1928, wouldn't you do something to stop it? Killing Hitler is quite a joke, but what's wrong with silencing and censoring the right people at the right time to keep bad things from happening? Haven't you learned anything from the past 100 years? Nationalism, militarism, ethnocentrism, any sort of -ism that binds people together over some illusory perceived commonality eventually yields war. Sure, censorship can be bad-- but had Hitler been censored early on, had the signs been heeded, Europe would not have needed to be destroyed for the second time in decades. Imagine never dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan! If someone had just spoken up to stop these very clear signs from progressing to their ends (which, by the way, always leads to war). How many hops, skips, and jumps away from saying "race and IQ are correlated" to saying "We must secure a future for our white children blah blah blah..."? These sentences appear to be unrelated, but to a racist they are the same thing. Remember: Free speech is not hate speech. Why? Because preventative measures must be taken to ensure the future for a peaceful civilization-- and thanks to history, we know what the signs are. What does a doctor tell you when he sees the symptoms of disease? He tells you the treatment, and says "Take this or you will get sick." The universities are protecting themselves from regression, but I see clearly that there are some who do not know what progress looks like-- and it is to say what is right at the right time, and this is the wrong time to say the wrong thing.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:50PM (8 children)
Trump voters can be broken down into three main groups in a ven diagram. You have the people who refused to vote for Hillary because of her very real baggage, the people who were willing to try anything for a job, and the Trolls who did it for the keks. When he won the response by the losers was that everyone who voted for Trump is a Nazi and we should treat them like that. Certainly Trump divided the country, but its not like Hillary didn't call the entire Right irredeamable deplorables and cheat half of the Democrats out of Bernie (not to emply justify bad behavior with bad behavior, all suck including the sellout Bernie). So you take a divided country and the Left (the side that would be persecuted if they are correct) decides to further divide by forcing a wedge between themselves and the Right. This is just the vocal leftists, but will drag all of those with that opinion along with them.
What is the response of generation Z? That voted in greater numbers for Trump than Hill? The same kids that were more involved in the great meme war on twitter and the chans? They will say "fuck it, you call me a Nazi then I will be a Nazi" . Gen Z is geared up to be the most conservative since the builders, and a wedge is being driven this early in their start.
We can all see how things might go bad. I always figured that regardless of opinion when shit its the fan its my duty as a gun owner to stand on the side of the people. But if they are going to call me a fascist and a Nazi, then why would I help them? Protest all you want, but pepper spraying old men wearing MAGA hats and kick them on the ground, then when the day finally comes there wont be anyone to protect the left because they helped the government in making themselves look like the enemy.
If the left wants to avoid us becoming Nazi Germany the way to do it is to break the separation between 'us and them' and find similarities. I'm a-ok with almost all liberal freedoms (as long as I dont have to pay for elective stuff), why can't they be okay with some of mine? Lets legalize pot, but tobacco users can't go outside their house. Lets pay for elective abortions, but you can't own a firearm or pass it down to your kids withoiut a background check. Lets open our borders, but not help people who have been in line for a decade. There has to be give and take, the Right has been giving on several core opinions, yet the left will only take because 'their opinions are weong'.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:56PM (7 children)
There has to be give and take, the Right has been giving on several core opinions
I sincerely hope you are kidding here... the right has not compromised, it has had decisions forced upon them that they don't like and the right works tirelessly to try and revoke those decisions.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:29PM (6 children)
So lets say someone is a Catholic. They are required to pay taxes if they want to live (not that they will be killed, but they can't work so they cant get housing or food) and their tax dollars go to fund, in small part, abortion. I don't care if they are hypocrites about being okay with the death penalty or whatever, but paying for abortions will send them to hell. So its okay to send them to hell so someone can get an abortion. I dont care if "well thats their fault for believing in a sky fairy", it makes the left out to be extreme assholes to force groups of people in this country to go to hell.
I suppose the left might be less bothered if they knew it would do the same to muslims.
So your "solution" is the same "you disagree so you are wrong" argument. I don't really like the right either as they are trampling all over everyones rights as well, but the left isn't the ones that are actively trying to be sent to hell. There are a lot of crazy religious people on the right, their beliefs have successfully caused dark ages before as a reaction to being trampled on. With as crazy as they can be, I dont see a reason why once backed into a corner over their eternal damnation they wont snap back again.
But go ahead, keep pepperspraying and beating old people that they associate with and see what they do. I am sure they will just turn the other cheek.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:22PM (3 children)
their tax dollars go to fund, in small part, abortion
(A) Same argument can be made about taxes paying for wars and the death penalty and all whole host of other things. Price of entry into society is acceptance of baseline conditions that you may not be happy about. I'm not saying they are hypocrites, I'm saying they aren't special and if everybody got to have exceptions based on "strongly held beliefs" then there would be no society in the first place.
(B) Since tax money literally can not be used to pay for abortion your argument is moot.
I dont see a reason why once backed into a corner over their eternal damnation they wont snap back again.
Because religious beliefs are neither absolute nor permanent. It was never the catholics who got worked up about abortion, it was the baptists and they supported full abortion rights as recently as 1976. [sbc.net] They only subbed in anti-abortion hysteria as a unify cause when being explicitly racist was no longer societally acceptable. Prior to that they were all about Genesis 2:7 which says that god only put a soul in adam after his body was fully formed.
Everyone picks and chooses from their scripture. Fundies are just louder in their denial of their selective reading. But it doesn't take much for them to pick a new set of verses to focus on and forget the old ones, just as long as someone they trust tells them to do it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:28PM
> It was never the catholics who got worked up about abortion,
And before you go all red-herring on that, I mean crazy frothing at the mouth the way the southern baptists are. They've been unhappy about it to varying degrees, but its not been a unify cause for catholicism in the US the way it has been for evangelicals.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)
Yep, it could and should be used to keep funding from going to wars and the death penalty.
Oh gee it wasnt the catholics it was the baptists? Guess that makes it okay, damned baptists!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:48PM
You seem interested in red herrings.
Is that because you no longer have anything resembling a logical argument but you still feel the need to say something?
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:35PM
You're a little bit off the ol' rocker Mr. Sulla, religion is taking a nose dive so I won't lose much sleep about their self-righteous outrage. Violence is already against the law, don't like people pepper spraying your buddies? Call the police and stop with the hysterics.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @11:50PM
But go ahead, keep pepperspraying and beating old people that they associate with and see what they do
WTF are you even talking about?
There is something seriously wrong with you that you would make such a random generic accusation and think it persuasive or even meaningful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:00PM
I agree to some extent, but who decides what is right and what is wrong? if the vocal minority are the only ones to speak out does that mean that they are right because they are the only ones voicing an opinion? how far do you take this? if all the ($minority) at once decree that something ($majorityGroup) does is wrong, even if ($minority) is only 1% of the population, are they correct and ($majority) should bend to their will for fear of hurt feelings? do you realise how far back this sets humanity?
wasting even a some minutes to tiptoe around somebodies feelings is not progress, its the normalistion of insanity, and at this rate we will be unable to progress as a society. that way of thinking is suicide.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:27PM (3 children)
How many hops, skips, and jumps away from saying "race and IQ are correlated" to saying "We must secure a future for our white children blah blah blah..."? These sentences appear to be unrelated, but to a racist they are the same thing.
Again, I somehow find myself defending Murray, even though (as I said in the summary and in previous posts), I think his scholarship is very problematic.
BUT, I think you overlook a several issues here.
(1) Violence begets violence. The fact that the Roman senators clubbed Tiberius Gracchus to death didn't stop the march toward the death of the Republic. Instead, it introduced a new escalation of political violence that ultimately led to abuses of Marius, Sulla, and ultimately the introduction of Julius Caesar as permanent dictator. Being more violent against your opponents doesn't mean you win the ultimate battle -- it just temporarily quells the immediate threat.
(2) Martyrs. Political divisions exist, and when you attack someone in an irrational manner, you create greater division and potentially draw more people to your opponents' cause. If these students had allowed an intellectual debate that even humiliated Murray intellectually, nobody outside of Vermont would likely have heard about this story. Now you have a bunch of conservative websites seeing Murray as a martyr for their cause, perhaps even taking the argument, "Well, if he's so dangerous that they won't even allow him to speak, what are they HIDING? Maybe he's RIGHT!"
(3) Murray wasn't there to talk about racial intelligence. He was there to have a discussion on his latest book, which is about class divisions, particularly in white communities. So, he likely wasn't even going to spout any propaganda about race and intelligence, unless someone asked him a question on it.
(4) Those who invited Murray also invited a LIBERAL poli-sci prof to ask him hard questions and to moderate the discussion. They wanted a serious debate, not a forum for him to promote his ideology.
(5) Most of the Murray supporters who might have attended this event are likely to be college students at Middlebury. What would actually change their minds about Murray? Shouting him down? Not likely. That just makes him look like a martyr (see above). If these students wanted to really convince their colleagues that Murray is misguided within the bounds of a university community, they'd have been much better off coming informed and making him look like an idiot by pointing out the flaws in his scholarship. If you had even a half-dozen well-prepared students asking him pointed questions and refusing to let him "hem and haw" to deflect things or calling him out when he avoided a question or cited bad stats without context or whatever, that would be a much more profound debunking of Murray than simply shouting him down. It would be a public humiliation of his scholarship.
Perhaps there is a call for other strategies in other contexts, but in an isolated Vermont college community, there were a lot better ways to handle this than intimidation and violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
(3) Murray wasn't there to talk about racial intelligence. He was there to have a discussion on his latest book, which is about class divisions, particularly in white communities. So, he likely wasn't even going to spout any propaganda about race and intelligence, unless someone asked him a question on it.
How far does that rationale extend?
If David Duke were invited to speak about the complexities of the Louisiana legislature, would he also deserve a fair hearing and debate?
There is a line somewhere. We are just arguing about where that line is drawn.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:00PM (1 child)
If David Duke were invited to speak about the complexities of the Louisiana legislature, would he also deserve a fair hearing and debate?
David Duke was a Senate candidate last year. He actually did speak [npr.org] at a historically black college, as part of an official debate, because he qualified according to the rules of the debate (which I gather was based on polls). I think Dillard University made the right decision to require the debate to take place in an empty auditorium, in that case.
I am profoundly disturbed by the fact that Duke received enough support to qualify, but I also support his rights if his campaign followed the rules. Ultimately, Duke received approximately 3% of the vote in the primary, which I think is a much better rejoinder to his extremist views than shouting him down or refusing his admittance to a campus would be. (Notably, several polls had him at 4-6% in the weeks prior, so it seems the debate did its job in that fewer people were apparently interested once they heard him speak, including his extended rant on things like "tribalist bankers.")
There is a line somewhere. We are just arguing about where that line is drawn.
I think the line is drawn by folks like college administrators, who choose whether an event can be hosted on their campus and what the terms will be. I do not advocate violence against speech UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I do think it's well within the rights of a college administration to determine whether or not to host an event for an invited speaker. It's also well within the rights of students to protest. It is NOT within their rights to use violence, make violent threats, or otherwise use physical intimidation against anyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:24PM
So are you OK with the heckler's veto?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:32PM (6 children)
but had Hitler been censored early on, had the signs been heeded, Europe would not have needed to be destroyed for the second time in decades.
That's based on a number of incorrect assumptions. The Nazis were censored early on and very frequently thereafter, particularly with libel and hate speech laws. The trials became great propaganda tools for the Nazis. Second, Hitler may not have been inevitable but a dictator and the rearmament plans (which predate the Nazis!) were. There were a variety of powerful players including the German military and industry engineering the fall of the Wiemar Republic. They just thought they could control Hitler.
The invasions may have been inevitable too. The rearmament plans were to bring Germany back up to a high level of military capability before the rest of Europe could respond. What can you do with a temporary advantage of military power, but fight with it?
but what's wrong with silencing and censoring the right people at the right time to keep bad things from happening?
The fact that it fails so hard in practice and doesn't actually do anything constructive. Let us also keep in mind that hate speech can be redefined to mean speech that opposes whoever is in power.
Remember: Free speech is not hate speech. Why? Because preventative measures must be taken to ensure the future for a peaceful civilization-- and thanks to history, we know what the signs are.
Which is why I oppose hate speech at every turn. It is the destruction of free speech. Free speech means we allow speech of parties we don't agree with even when they are being hateful.
The universities are protecting themselves from regression, but I see clearly that there are some who do not know what progress looks like-- and it is to say what is right at the right time, and this is the wrong time to say the wrong thing.
Nonsense about the universities. Those speech restrictions undermine the intellectual freedom universities used to be known for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:59PM (5 children)
> The trials became great propaganda tools for the Nazis.
You bolded that, did you mean to make it a link so we could actually verify your claim?
That would have been the right thing to do.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @12:00AM (4 children)
Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher’s newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.
and for the latter:
As the head of Berlin's Nazis, Goebbels chose Bernhard Weiss, the Jewish deputy chief of the city's police force, as a target of his anti-Semitic agitation. Goebbels nicknamed him "Isidore" and, after Weiss sued Goebbels for libel and won, he called him "Weiss, whom one isn't allowed to call Isidore." Goebbels derided Weiss's police officers as "Bernhardiner" ("St. Bernard dogs") and "Weiss guardsmen."
Allegedly, the Nazis lost dozens of libel lawsuits brought forth by Weiss personally. Wikipedia claims [wikipedia.org] over 40 were filed with none settled in the Nazi's favor.
In any case, we have exactly the same tools that supposedly will prevent a Nazi resurgence now were helpful in creating the Nazi menace then.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:54AM (1 child)
Not coincidental to current events, methinks:
(scroll down to "The Palestinian Muslim Who Inspired Hitler’s Final Solution")
http://www.focusonjerusalem.com/rememberingthemuslimwhoinspiredHitler.htm [focusonjerusalem.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:49PM
Really?
You think a source that is about "bible prophecy" isn't just a a little bit biased?
Dude you aren't seeking knowledge, you are seeking confirmation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:57PM (1 child)
You've got one guy claiming the lawsuits were a PR tool for the nazis.
And he's got quite the reason to make that argument - he published the mohammed cartoons and then was prevented from publishing holocaust cartoons, almost lost his job just for saying he would publish them.
Your other citation says some suits were filed but not that they were effective PR tools for the nazis.
You should be a little less credulous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @09:30PM
You've got one guy claiming the lawsuits were a PR tool for the nazis. And he's got quite the reason to make that argument - he published the mohammed cartoons and then was prevented from publishing holocaust cartoons, almost lost his job just for saying he would publish them.
Your other citation says some suits were filed but not that they were effective PR tools for the nazis.
Notice that you aren't saying that my sources are incorrect. And really all sources are someone making a claim. Are you going to claim (and I take seriously for some reason) than every claim is equally unreliable because it is a claim? We have demonstrated here repeated trials for hate speech, particularly against Jews, and libel cases. None of these worked as advertised.
Instead, I'll build on that prior claim to state that repeated, very public passage through the legal system and repeated ineffective persecution by the authorities was a key factor in the transformation of the Nazi party from a regional group of nuts to the most powerful political party of 1932. The key trials were the 1923 trials for treason of the current Nazi leadership for their Beer Hall Putsch [wikipedia.org], a failed attempt to overthrow the state government of Bavaria. In the wake of those trials, Hitler achieved national prominence and then published "Mein Kampf", a key propaganda work/autobiography which he had written while in jail.
That established the overall narrative/myth: that the Nazis were working towards a better society, but were held back by the powers, ultimately controlled by the Jews, that made German society weak. Every impotent trial that resulted in an inconsequential fine, sentence, or seizure of equipment generated publicity and stoked the image of the Nazis as a persecuted minority fighting a corrupt and sinister force.
Sorry, but I believe hate speech laws help make the very problems they are meant to fight worse. And they do other, lasting damage to the society such as hushing speech that challenges the powerful.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:45PM
If we don't follow the rule of law, and the constitution, you'll just replace Hitler with Stalin.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:16PM
Don't laugh-- remember how you thought in 2015 when Trump announced his Presidency, "Oh, it can't happen here!"
That's about as idiotic as the people who point out that many famous inventors in the past were ridiculed for trying to do the 'impossible' in an effort to promote some unscientific nonsense with a slick marketing campaign. The reality is that they are two entirely different matters and it's a non sequitur to say that because one thing happened the other is also likely to happen. You could use this same logic to show that anything could happen.
but what's wrong with silencing and censoring the right people at the right time to keep bad things from happening?
The problem is that you're silencing and censoring people because something bad might happen in the future, which you can't even prove. Censoring someone is unjustifiable. Fight speech with more speech. If the population is really so susceptible to a terrible idea that a simple speech could persuade them to go along with horrible things, then you're already doomed anyway. It's foolish to think that censoring a few speeches would actually stop anything, and it would still be unethical to do so even if it would.
This reminds me of small children who pretend to be superheroes. You're not a superhero because you punch a suspected nazi in the face, and nor are you a superhero because you stop people from speaking; you're just an authoritarian. Deluding yourself into believing that the next holocaust is right around the corner so that you can justify committing heinous acts just makes you a bad guy as well.
Remember: Free speech is not hate speech.
So are you now advocating for government censorship? Because the first amendment doesn't include exceptions for hate speech, so you're simply wrong. Hate speech may be terrible, but people are free to say it anyway.
Both you and Donald Trump are enemies to those who care about real freedom, so congratulations.