Protecting 21st Century Americans’ First Amendment Rights – A Modest Proposal


“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

“Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment” – Howard dean, 20 april 2017 via twitter

How do we go about reconciling the above two quotes? On the one hand, the late progressive visionary George Orwell seemed to believe that free speech was the very essence of liberty. On the other hand, former Vermont governor Dean seeks to place constitutional limits on free speech. As we explain below, both men are equally correct, but Orwell is more equal than Dean.

For the majority of our daily lives, the question of free speech is utterly irrelevant. We get up, greet our loved one(s), indulge in idle chat/ ordinary conversation with our neighbors/work colleagues/fellow social justice warriors etc; we read thoughtful articles in accredited media such as the Huffington Post, Guardian or Accredited Times, whilst scorning at the ignorance of the right-wing press.

The problem as always lies with hate speech. Maybe someone sniggers behind the back of the accounts’ clerk formerly known as Bill but now, post-surgery, is most definitely Margaret. Perhaps you discover that someone at work is a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan, voted Trump, or prays the rosary outside Planned Parenthood clinics purely to intimidate vulnerable womyn, and then they venture their bigoted opinion to you. How is any of this even legal?

Part of the solution to hate speech already exists: Safe Spaces. The mistake many Social Justice Warriors make in demanding Safe Spaces is to limit these cocoons of comfort in terms of size and geography. These well-intentioned individuals ask only for some designated areas where anyone can relax and be able to fully express, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, religious affiliation, age, or physical or mental ability.

The downside, of course, is that all other areas not specifically designated as ‘safe’ are ‘unsafe’. In the abode of the literal Hitlers, all manner of hate speech prevails. Horizontally-enhaced people, for example, may very well find themselves labelled ‘fatty’, ‘lump’, ‘tub’, ‘porker’, ‘fatso’, ‘lard-ass’, ‘salad-shirker’, ‘obese’, ‘fat bastard’, ‘beached whale’, ‘blimp’, ‘buffalo’, ‘fat cow’, ‘chank’, ‘cheese hog’, ‘doughboy’, ‘fat ass’, ‘fatso’, ‘heifer’, ‘hogbeast’, podger’, ‘sow’, ‘whale’ or ‘elephant’. Receiving any one of these hateful and often specieist insults is enough to ruin the day for those gifted with a prodigious appetite.

Our modest proposal is two-fold. We firstly propose that the entire United States landmass is designated as a Safe Space. Why should the haters pollute any part of our country with their bigotry? We believe that this proposal is feasible without changing a single word in the Constitution or the First Amendment itself.

This brings us to the second part of the proposal, which is to add some much-needed guidance to the First Amendment. As we say above, we do not propose to change a single word of the First Amendment; however, we do believe it is important to define certain words to avoid misunderstandings. The non-capitalised words ‘speech’, ‘religion’, ‘press’ for example, all need to be capitalised so that their limits can be properly understood. Defining important words is best practice, and simple common sense as any attorney will tell you. We therefore present the First Amendment below showing which words need to be capitalised and defined in an accredited glossary.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof; or Abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.

For the avoidance of doubt, the definition of ‘speech’ will not include hate speech.


Absolutely agree.

Safe spaces are places where people can gather and express themselves freely. But freedom does not include the right to use hate speech or to express hate in any way. A progressive defines hate as anything that they do not like or which makes them feel bad or in any way questions or contradicts the progressive narrative. This is sort of similar to how you’re an anti-semite when jews don’t like you.

Attempting to “debate” using hate science, such as the proliferation of granular DNA analysis in forensics (they are going far beyond race now, the tests for which are over 10 years old and people literally don’t even know it) or hate facts, is simply not to be tolerated. Tolerance doesn’t mean you tolerate things. It means you accept like-minded people and shun nonconformists. This is why the space is “safe.”

One of the great discoveries that feminism has given us is that “facts” do not matter. Feelings matter. And feelings give you the ability and right to have your own personal facts and personal truths and personal reality (inc. personal god) and NOBODY can tell you otherwise because your feelings are entirely subjective. But this is what is IMPORTANT, not empirical or objective stuff prattled about by dead white men such as Aristotle.

Several of my black friends were criticizing me for going skydiving as “that’s white people shit.” Like powered flight, the written word, and shoes, I agreed with them. What they said was “fun” was hanging out with friends and consuming tasty fried poultry and grape-flavored sodas. Clearly, I was invading their safe space just by being white, because their subjective priorities were different and they are far higher on the victim totem pole than I. Situations like this illustrate all too clearly how far we have to go to combat racism and white supremacy and hate in our world. I marvel at how people of color can even *congregate* in a safe space in this day and age as they are being oppressed by having to do it in a multistory building with indoor plumbing and windows and doors! This constantly rubs their nose in white supremacy and white priorities and values systems when they just want to be safe.



Wow, what a comment Trav! I totally agree. Womyn are so wise – they taught us that everyone has THEIR OWN truth, so what makes YOUR truth better than someone else’s? All beliefs are equally valid and equaly true – even contradictory ones. This is true egalitarianism where EVERYONE gets to win, and nobody has to be wrong or get their feelings hurt.

Feelings are even more important than hearing facts about how your own life is in danger. So we shouldn’t tell obese people that they’re at risk of death, because this hurts their feelings. It’s better to let them die than to hurt their feelings.


Given that much of so-called “hate” speech is uttered with win-win intentions, we need a mens rea standard. Hate speech intended as constructive criticism must be encouraged.



Any reasonable person can take complete satisfaction in using such language, and such talk would be used in obvious good faith and rectitude.

Make my votes count
Make my votes count

What about when the hatred is systemic? Are safe spaces enough when people who call themselves professionals also intervene?
Take people gifted with a prodigious appetite. Sure they get called a few hurtful names but the real pain comes in when they pick up a paper or medical journal and are told their chosen lifestyle is wrong. They are at risk of diabetes, stroke, heart attack and many other health symptoms fabricated just to scare them.
Or you see a bikini in Victoria Secret you really like and are told that it can’t be ordered in a 7XXXXL.
Booking a flight when they insist you pay for 2 seats and even then the seat belts are not large enough to go around you.
Hiking trails and other public areas with benches spaced too far apart because walking causes shortness of breath. There are hundreds of other examples of this discrimination.
Why should someone have to change to fit their environment. We need to change the environment to meet their specific needs. Luckily we have ADA and many other laws passed to make this happen.



Exactly – another great point. Not catering to EVERY body shape, disability and gender identity is HATE! Even if there is only ONE PERSON with a particular handicap, EVERY institution should build special facilities catering to this person or we have an extreme case of ableism on our hands. It doesn’t matter how much it costs to build these facilities or how many people are likely to use them – social justice knows no bounds!

Marinated Le Pen
Marinated Le Pen

$500 a pop? I’m sure he bought quite a few, changed his name to Black Wives Matter, or Black Partners Matter, and has gone deep underground.


Wow powerful article Pbier. Hate speech is quite simply violence against marginalized minorities and that it should be legal because some stupid white racists wrote some rubbish hundreds of years ago is preposterous!!!



It’s time to repeal the first amendment! It’s not fit for the 21st century!


Let’s not jump the gun! The 1st Amendment to the Constitution isn’t the First Amendment for Nothing. We should give Pbier’s Capitalization idea a good shot before we resort to Repeal.


Great article Pbier! There is a very clear distinction between free speech and hate speech. Free speech is tolerant, non-offensive and politically correct. Hate speech is mean, unnecessary and hateful. The first amendment doesn’t explicitly make this distinction and is therefore not fit for purpose. In my opinion we need to repeal the first amendment.