Feminists are allowed to demean men, militant blacks to demean whites, gays to demean conservative Christians, and liberals to demean Republicans, people who own guns, people who drive SUVs and indeed pretty much anybody who doesn’t agree with their politics.David at The Torch explains.
[George Mason's Peter] Berkowitz makes an important point: in recent years, a collection of legal, political, and social theorists has argued that free speech is itself repressive. Consequently, speech must be shaped and regulated so that it advances only the correct viewpoints and suppresses those viewpoints (subjectively) considered to be dangerous, intolerant, and hateful.(Looks like yet another book to read ...)
But it's all a sham.
At Harvard Law School, I saw many of these “progressive censors” up close. It is my belief that “progressive censorship” was less a principle than an expedient rationalization—a justification for grabbing and holding power in the small feudal state that is the modern university. In the larger culture, many of these same individuals declare their undying love for the First Amendment. Why? Because it is the only thing that allows them to maintain their public voice—and keep their job.Never mind that the job they're doing is counterproductive.