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??

First three words are “As a sociologist.” https://t.co/q7Cvf7CKnl

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 21, 2017

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.