I kinda agree with you(ish)
But I also don’t. Here’s where I agree:
There is no basic human right to never feel bad, never being challenged and always feeling virtuous.
That’s where we part ways. Because, verbal abuse, is still abuse. The comment on the Newsweek post was absolutely inappropriate. It is abusive to that young woman’s family. It was completely uncalled for and unacceptable.
No one should have to tolerate that kind of abuse from a stranger. Freedom of speech doesn’t = freedom to abuse, freedom to be as disrespectful and shitty as you want to be, freedom to propagate falsehood and the -isms.
Violence starts in the mind. Without words to first think it inside, then next describe it to an audience externally— since most who are neuro-typical don’t think in pictures — there can be no acts that follow.
The thoughts of that man were not those of a person I’d want anywhere near my child or anyone I love. Even you.
But we do defend these people’s rights to say what they want. Personally I think its a slippery slope to try to put lawful limits on speech beyond actual threats. I think here again is something we agree on.
I think the author is saying we need to stamp that out before it catches fire. Its a disaster to have a president who doesn’t wholly condemn that kind of talk, rallies of KKK members with torches and refusing to call a domestic terrorist a terrorist.
The tolerance of these beliefs has gotten us in an awful mess. I don’t know the practical solution. In the past it seemed people didn’t say things like that out loud for the most part for fear of being ostracized. And losing that mechanism, where we cannot trust our own population to regulate itself in the face of such lunacy…
Maybe the law is a last resort?
Not that the clown show we have now could get anything passed anyway, so really I don’t know what you’re so worked up about.