(National Sentinel)Â Double Standard: We’ve never had much use for so-called “hate speech” because it was a creation of the far Left to be used to strategically to shut people up who they disagreed with and if need be, have them charged with the “crime” of hate speech.
The hypocritesÂ who run Rutgers University just proved this point.
Earlier this year one of the institution’s Left-wing lunatic professors,Â James Livingston, was initially reprimanded for an epic rant against white people in May in which he singled out white children (spoiler alert: Yeah, he’s white, too).
“OK, officially, I now hate white people,” he began his rant in a Facebook post that went on to explain that while he was visiting a restaurant, Harlem Shake, to get a burger for dinner, “the place was overrun with little Caucasian [redacted] who know their parents will approve of anything they do.
“Slide around on the floor, you little [redacted] sing loudly, you unlikely moron. Do what you want, nobody here is going to restrict your right to be white. I hereby resign from my race. [Redacted] these people.”
If that isn’t the textbook definition of “hate speech,” there is no such thing. And again, initially, Rutgers agreed. They found him guilty of same in August.
But,Â The Blaze reports, a “ThursdayÂ news releaseÂ from FIRE â€” the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education â€” revealed that the university does not believe that Livingstonâ€™s remarks were racist and reversed the charge of racial discrimination.”
Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, FIREâ€™s director of litigation, told the news site, â€œFIRE is pleased that Rutgers did the right thing and reversed the charge of racial discrimination against Professor Livingston. Any other result would have undermined the free speech and academic freedom rights of all Rutgers faculty members.â€
Iâ€™m relieved that my right to free speech and my academic freedom have been validated by this retraction, thanks to FIRE, the AAUP, and colleagues, who made this strange episode an issue to be debated and decided in public.Â But if I may use the occasion to preach â€¦ As a tenured professor, I have resources and protections that are unavailable to most employees. That is not just unfortunate, it is simply wrong, and needs redressing. Would [sic] that FIRE could represent all of us on the job.
Besides being an argument against tenured professors, the fact that this clown is claiming that what he said was “free speech” is a sick joke. Worse is that it was validated by the university.
What if Livingstone had posted a similar rant but substituted “black” or “Hispanic” for the words “white” and “Caucasian?” Would that have been considered “hate speech” or “free speech?”
Does it matter that he himself is white when it’s his race he’s trashing? It shouldn’t; disparaging someone because of their skin color (or ethnicity, or sexual preference, or ‘claimed’ gender, or religion, or anything else) is the textbook definition of hate speech. The human characteristics of the speaker don’t matter.
But they do, obviously, and that’s the point.
There is no such thing as “hate speech” until the Left steps in andÂ decides that what someone is saying — most often a political opponent — is hate speech.
We will give Livingston some credit in claiming that what he said is indeed protected under the First Amendment.
So is everything his political opponents say, provided they’re not yelling fire in a crowded theater or “Bomb!” at an airport.
There is no such thing as hate speech. It’s a false concept, a faulty premise that should never exist in a country where citizens’ speech is absolute, protected, and guaranteed.
The fact that Livingston ‘got away with’ saying what he said about members of his own race is proof of it, even if that’s not the conclusion he and Rutgers intended to make.
Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter â€”Â Click here!