“I work at a local community college. Last week, a staff member had ‘BLM’ (Black Lives Matter) buttons for distribution at a committee meeting. Although I do not agree with the behavior of that movement, I do respect her right to voice her support.

“The problem is: In addition to working in a non-sworn capacity at the college, I am also a reserve police officer with more than 10 years service. I am acutely aware of the decision-making process on the street, and understand nuances that are not understood by the media and members of the general public. I closely followed the incidents that have resulted with the BLM response (Martin/Zimmerman-Florida, Freddie Gray-Baltimore and Ferguson).

“I am not yet through my probationary period (1 year), It would not be wise to present any counterpoint, particularly with the results of the recent election cycle still settling down. I may in the future quietly display a counterpoint to the BLM. This would likely cause controversy.

“It is important to remind the public that First Amendment protections cover all speech, including that which is not currently in vogue. Mr. Olson’s letter is a necessary reminder that the First Amendment protections cover more than just speech that advocates a popular position.”

While I agree that “fake news” is badly in need of a clearer definition — some people are using it loosely to mean reports that embody bias, unoriginality, garden-variety reporting mistakes, and so forth, which seems wrong — I have no doubt that it describes something worth raising awareness about.

Here’s one case history of an invented story that got more than a million hits:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

That does not mean the government (or the private management of Facebook or Twitter) should or can necessarily do anything about it, but it does suggest that we warn our friends and family more carefully about not spreading emotionally satisfying but invented tales. Over the history of Overlawyered, we have done battle repeatedly against fake stories sometimes originating as humor or satire and then taken seriously in later internet circulation, such as the “Winnebago cruise control” tale.

I’m a very reasonable person, who isn’t a big fan of Donald Trump. And the “hate speech” charges against Mr. Trump are 99 44/100th% groundless. Has he ever said anything “hateful” about African Americans or Gays? I can’t find anything, yet these charges are leveled against him daily.

Much as I would support a repeal of the law of gravity after falling off a cliff, but by then it’s too late. Let’s not go there at all.

In any case, the inevitable effect of “broad neutrality between the two great parties”, is not only a shifting target, but cuts out any “lesser” party. It narrowly defines a political norm, which is highly troublesome when the situation shifts.

Bob

I would, however, support “hate speech is not free speech” if it applied equally to hate speech directed against white males, Christians, Trump supporters, e.g. For educational purposes.