LA Times Op-Ed: Freedom Of Speech Triggers Eating Disorders And PTSD [VIDEO]

LA Times Op-Ed: Freedom Of Speech Triggers Eating Disorders And PTSD [VIDEO]

LA Times Op-Ed: Freedom Of Speech Triggers Eating Disorders And PTSD [VIDEO]

Our First Amendment freedoms are under attack, and have been for some time now. However, in the last two or three years, those attacks have become more prevalent, because they have a problem with speech that differs from their designated point of view.

Let’s take a gander at the op-ed that appeared in the LA Times yesterday. It has a cute title: “The case for restricting hate speech.”

The high points (or is it low) of the op-ed are as follows:

  • We regulate slander and libel. So how come we can’t regulate hate speech?
  • We can let the KKK do their stuff, deal with college frat boys hurling insults, not yell FIRE in a theatre, but racist hate speech isn’t regulated?
  • The “regime of free speech protects the powerful and popular.”
  • The Supreme Court protects soldiers funerals from the Westboro crazies but not the LGBTQ community.
  • Shoppers and businesses are protected from aggressive panhandling, I can’t quite figure out how that’s hate speech, but I digress.

So after all of that, her conclusion is this:

Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders.

Who wrote this dreck??

Well that explains a great deal doesn’t it? Ultimately the author, Laura Nielson, is attempting to make the case that hate speech and thus FREE SPEECH must be regulated better because right now it’s triggering everyone and causing PTSD.  

Let’s take a look at exactly WHO is practicing hate speech, demanding any speech they dislike be shut down, and causing tension, riots, and injuring others. LANGUAGE WARNING

TrigglyPuff

Berkeley Riots Shutting Down Milo’s Speech and vandalizing the campus

https://youtu.be/RhUR0hZXCP8

A Trump supporter attacked by Berkeley professor Eric Clanton who was wielding a U-lock

Shut down a Yale Professor because …Halloween or something

Professor says No to demands of Evergreen students ordering all whites to vacate campus, and craziness ensues. *Btw – due to the threats of violence from those opposing Professor Weinstein’s stance, his family is now in hiding.

University of Missouri

Then there are the latest examples of professors posting online threats that close college campuses, or BLM activist professors who shrilly and angrily defend excluding people from events based upon their race. It’s even led to these kinds of reactions from students and young adults.

https://twitter.com/Jmama320/status/877650700771008512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2017%2F06%2F22%2Fzomg-not-that-college-student-so-triggered-over-conservative-reading-material-she-alerts-msnbc%2F

https://twitter.com/Jmama320/status/877651780015763456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2017%2F06%2F22%2Fzomg-not-that-college-student-so-triggered-over-conservative-reading-material-she-alerts-msnbc%2F

That poor little snowflake. Whatever shall she do? How DARE they assign her something to read that is so triggering!

Do you see a common thread here? The supposedly marginalized folks that Ms. Nielson is defending are the ones adding fuel to the flames of hate speech, destroying property, injuring people, and shutting down ANY speech that they determine hurts their oh so superior worldview. In fact for some, the ability to offer a differing point of view means the speaker is a shill for the Alt-right.

Nielson’s opinion ignores some key realities. Such as:

And this:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Ms. Nielson is oh so subtly advocating. She wants the U.S. to go the way of our far superior European counterparts and start regulating hate speech. Ok…

Is what the guy said hateful? Yes. Should he have been thrown in jail because of it? No.

And don’t forget this regarding the current situation in the UK.

And then there’s this:

Do we REALLY want to go down that road? Are we Americans really that sensitive that we can’t handle opinions that are counter intuitive to our own? Maybe we are. Maybe we need a primer on how to be offended.

Here’s the thing. Our Freedom of Speech is a gift and a responsibility.

Ms. Nielson ignores that in favor of advocating restrictions on speech that she determines is hateful so supposedly marginalized people won’t need therapy. She wants to be the arbitrator of which speech will be offensive and which will physically harm others. What she REALLY wants? Censorship by her rules.

And THAT is offensive.

Written by

6 Comments
  • Stacy0311 says:

    The author is a clear case of over educated but still dumber than a box of rocks.

  • Scott says:

    Liberalism is a mental disorder! these idiots don’t realize that if they get their way, they will be the first ones jailed..The stupidity is painful! Idiots like this need to be locked in a padded room, and never allowed to reproduce!

  • Scott says:

    OOh, and triggly puffs parents need to be beaten for raising such a ridiculous snowflake!

  • Chris in N.Va says:

    How did they miss the obvious connection to:
    Flat feet
    Acne
    PMS
    ADHD
    Halitosis
    The Heartbreak of Psoriasis
    Sipping Dentures
    Insomnia
    ….and…and…and…Climate Change, of course!!!

    Wuddah bunch of maroons.

    Liberalism indeed appears more and more to be a mental illness prohibiting more than two synapses to work together at any one time.

    They had a thought one, time, but it died of loneliness.

  • GWB says:

    TrigglyPuff

    OK, that should have a VISUAL WARNING before it gets a LANGUAGE WARNING. *shudder*

    his family is now in hiding

    Because he’s not a conservative, he’s probably a hoplophobe. Otherwise they wouldn’t need to hide.

    Racist hate speech has been linked to….

    So, you’ve just minimized “hate speech” down to too much sugar in your diet. Excellent job, missy.

    We regulate slander and libel. So how come we can’t regulate hate speech?

    Yes, because it is FALSE. You know, sorta like how we prevent fraud. It has to be FALSE and defamatory to be slander/libel.

    We can let the KKK do their stuff, deal with college frat boys hurling insults, not yell FIRE in a theatre, but racist hate speech isn’t regulated?

    Actually, you CAN yell “fire!” in a theater. What you can NOT do is yell it in a situation where you know there really isn’t a fire, because your only possible intent in doing so is to make people believe in a FALSEhood and thereby to induce panic.

    The “regime of free speech protects the powerful and popular.”

    How in the f* can you even tie your shoelaces in the morning and believe this?!?

    The Supreme Court protects soldiers funerals from the Westboro crazies but not the LGBTQ community.

    No. No, they don’t. What they said was that a funeral has a certain space about it that should be recognized as solemn, if not sacred. So, no one should be allowed to disrupt that ceremony. That’s true of ALL funerals, and ALL crazy protest groups. It’s arguably true of ANY gathering where folks have provided for a venue where they can be heard and desire to disseminate their message (within that venue*) or hold a peaceful gathering, that they shouldn’t be disrupted by others.
    (* If you want to march down the streets or yell your slogans in the park, then other people have the right to drown you out – up to a point. Not if you’re keeping your speech within the boundaries of your venue, though.)

    Shoppers and businesses are protected from aggressive panhandling, I can’t quite figure out how that’s hate speech, but I digress.

    Well, she’s saying it’s a lesser offense than ‘hate speech’. The problem is it’s 1) not speech, and 2) “aggressive panhandling” has other components than speech – hence the “aggressive” part.

    Basically, this woman has no business putting “-ology” after anything she does or says, since a rational, scientific brain she does not appear to have. Nina’s exactly right about what she really wants – she wants the power to tell you to STFU. And to throw you in jail if you don’t.

  • Scott says:

    GWB,
    Well said, but I have to disagree with part of your last paragraph.
    .”Basically, this woman has no business putting “-ology” after anything she does or says, since a rational, scientific brain she does not appear to have.”
    I would argue that “scatology” would be completely appropriate for her, because she’s obviously full of S**T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram