Hurt Feelings vs. Free Speech: Where Do We Draw the Line?

Since when are hurt feelings a sufficient reason to justify the restriction of speech?  By the way, who decides what is acceptable is no small matter.  We live in an era where someone taking offense is treated as worse than making actual death threats.  For those prizing free speech, this must change.  

Want some proof?  Nathalie Rose Jones made multiple threats of violence against President Trump on Facebook and Instagram.  U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro had her arrested and put in jail with no bail.  The grand jury declined to indict her.  Whereupon Judge James Boasberg, he of fame for restricting Trump’s ability to remove illegal immigrants, then reversed the decision of U.S. Magistrate Moxila Upadayaya to hold Jones without bail and set her free.  Her punishment?  Judge Boasberg really threw the book at her.  Jones must wear an ankle monitor and undergo a psychiatric evaluation.  Let us not forget this woman posted her thoughts and threats multiple times on two of the biggest social media platforms.  So, while these two giants might see fit to restrict her access to their platforms, Judge Boasberg did not see fit to limit her speech.

Meanwhile, punishment for offending the “special groups” is sure and swift.  College deans resign in shame for saying All Lives Matter rather than Black Lives Matter.  Kids are suspended from school for using the wrong pronoun or registering a complaint that it might not be a good idea to let biological 15-year-old males into the female dressing rooms.  We are told the reason we cannot burn the American flag is that it would be considered illegal to restrict speech.  Yet, not giving proper respect to the LGBTQ flag is sufficient to be sanctioned.  

As a true proponent of free speech, I do not favor burning either flag.  However, I also believe you should have the right to burn one or both of them.  You see it is my view that free speech is too important to restrict on the basis of hurt feelings.  We already limit speech for things such as inciting a riot, which is proper.  As to hurt feelings, it is time to say toughen up, buttercup.

An Irish comedy writer, Graham Linehan, was actually arrested for offending one of the special groups.  Five armed men took him into custody and questioned him about his media posts.  His crime?  In April, he had three times posted on X about transgender females being allowed into a female-only space.  “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act.  Make a scene, call the cops, and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”

He will soon appear in court to plead not guilty of harassing Sophie Brooks, a trans activist.  “Punch him in the balls” seemingly is worthy of an arrest and prosecution.  No chance that what a comedian was primarily saying was “remind he is still a man.”

Yes, this is Ireland.  At the same time, we have seen multiple examples of our government attempting to limit speech when it conflicted with the views of the Administration, all in the name of reducing misinformation and disinformation.  During the COVID pandemic, the Biden Administration flat-out urged social platforms to censor posts that contradicted what they were saying.  Of course, it was later proven that much of what the Biden folks wanted limited was in fact, you should pardon the expression, true and accurate.

I will go to my grave arguing that the best way to counter bad and incorrect speech is to increase the amount of good and correct speech.  Individuals are free to decide for themselves.  We call it democracy.  

Common sense: It is time to cease with sanctions against speech because it offends (especially when it counts only for those who are members of special groups).  Any attempt by the government, any government, to take action to limit speech is nothing more than a power play to impose its views.