There's an unfortunate belief that, since 1A isn't absolute (as in 'fire... theater'), then it can be limited arbitrarily, as long as it's not "too much" and that there's a good enough reason in the eyes of the limiters. I even see it coming from conservatives.
Thing is - the only non-absolute part of 1A is where one person's speech infringes on another's rights. "Fire... theater" is only a problem if a - there isn't one of sufficient magnitude to justify a potentially stampede-inducing warning, and b - someone gets harmed in the aftermath.
This is why the limits on free speech: libel, slander, perjury, intimidation, incitement - are not arbitrary.
Hurt feelings are not a protected right, so there cannot be legislation against causing them. And, that's before we get into the fact that they are subjective, not quantifiable. They rely on the cliamant's declaration.
As for "hate speech" that actually intimidates or incites - it's already prosecutable, if it rises to such an immediate and proximate threshold. Spouting garbage on the internet does not.
None of this interests politicians, who as you note simply want an excuse to score points and silence those they don't like.
The irony is, the Left uses "free speech" to literally slander and incite violence while accusing the Right (see Tucker Carlson's anodyne comments that do no such thing) of inciting murder. While their tendentious accusation would never stand up in court, it's "good enough" to cancel Carlson on Twitter or wherever. And of course we'll have a government panel or board soon enough that proclaims Carlson's remarks are the very definition of "hate".
There's an unfortunate belief that, since 1A isn't absolute (as in 'fire... theater'), then it can be limited arbitrarily, as long as it's not "too much" and that there's a good enough reason in the eyes of the limiters. I even see it coming from conservatives.
Thing is - the only non-absolute part of 1A is where one person's speech infringes on another's rights. "Fire... theater" is only a problem if a - there isn't one of sufficient magnitude to justify a potentially stampede-inducing warning, and b - someone gets harmed in the aftermath.
This is why the limits on free speech: libel, slander, perjury, intimidation, incitement - are not arbitrary.
Hurt feelings are not a protected right, so there cannot be legislation against causing them. And, that's before we get into the fact that they are subjective, not quantifiable. They rely on the cliamant's declaration.
As for "hate speech" that actually intimidates or incites - it's already prosecutable, if it rises to such an immediate and proximate threshold. Spouting garbage on the internet does not.
None of this interests politicians, who as you note simply want an excuse to score points and silence those they don't like.
The irony is, the Left uses "free speech" to literally slander and incite violence while accusing the Right (see Tucker Carlson's anodyne comments that do no such thing) of inciting murder. While their tendentious accusation would never stand up in court, it's "good enough" to cancel Carlson on Twitter or wherever. And of course we'll have a government panel or board soon enough that proclaims Carlson's remarks are the very definition of "hate".
Psychological projection explains a lot of this.