Viewpoints » Editorials

Land of the free?

On January 6, the Committee on Free Expression released a report addressing the issue of freedom of expression on campus. The committee consists of seven professors at the University who were appointed in July to draft a statement that articulates the University’s “commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the community.” The statement itself says that the role of the University in fostering freedom of expression should be to help members of the community debate “in an effective and responsible manner.” We agree with this central idea—that the University must protect open discourse. However, this report lacks clarity on what constitutes “effective and responsible” discourse. The University needs to clearly differentiate hate speech and offensive speech. Hate speech is defined as “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits,” according to the American Bar Association. The report’s failure to clearly define hate speech implies that all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel. While it is important for students to challenge each other’s opinions, this should not come at the expense of students’ mental well-being or safety.

The report specifies that the University can still regulate speech that is unlawful, libelous, or threatening, calling these categories “narrow exceptions” to a policy of general free expression. However, labeling these types of speech “narrow exceptions” minimizes the seriousness and harmfulness of this kind of speech. What is more concerning are the University’s apparent inconsistencies on this issue. In an e-mail sent on November 24 in response to the false hacking incident, Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services Karen Warren Coleman reiterated the University’s “commitment to a diverse campus free from harassment and discrimination.” Given the University’s stated commitment to eradicating hateful speech on campus in the past, it is disappointing that it has failed to maintain this strong stance in its most recent report. Condemning hate speech would not have detracted from a strong defense of free speech—it would have simply clarified it.

On December 12, President Zimmer and Provost Eric Isaacs detailed new steps the University will be taking to address issues of diversity and inclusion, including the establishment of two new campus climate surveys focused on gaining insight on issues pertaining to cases of sexual misconduct and underrepresented groups on campus. Given the fearful climate that many students have cited in the past few months, the University must take the issues of diversity and inclusion into account when writing about the importance of free speech. It is not enough for the University to simply reiterate its commitment to free speech; it must also discuss its nuances and where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable speech fall.

Freedom of expression is essential to a productive and creative learning environment. This means students must be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from their own. Speech that challenges commonly held assumptions can be beneficial. Hate speech benefits no one because it seeks only to tear down, not to build up. The University needs to directly address hate speech for the good of productive discourse.

In their January 6 e-mail, Zimmer and Isaacs said that this report would be a part of an ongoing discussion about the role of free expression at the University. In order to forge an inclusive campus climate, the University must maintain a consistent commitment to eradicating hate speech and harassment in campus discussion. Free expression and a campus climate of inclusivity are not mutually exclusive. Rather, fostering a culture of inclusivity will serve to increase the quality and diversity of discourse on campus.

—The Maroon Editorial Board

  • Greg Sellers

    So when did U Of C students become such pussy asses? I find this really offensive. You see, reviling an opponent may not be civil, but speech is an integral part of who we are. You may respond with disgust to others’ speech, but you may not censor it. Reconcile this viewpoint with the Charlie Hebdo incident.

    • Mike Larrazzo

      As in most universitiees, they have become Pussy asses who seem to have no problem “othering” white cis het able-bodied men while hiding behind a feelz-shield of sensitivity.
      Open discourse up to the marketplace of ideas, and get your $140,000 tuitions-worth.

    • “I find this really offensive.”
      Wait, you’re “offended” by free speech? Oh, the irony.

      • LanceSmith

        I am heavily pro-free-speech, but I’m often offended by the speech of others. There is no irony there. Why? Because even though I am offended I STILL fight for their right to say it.

        You seem to be suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being offended. Being offended is a fact of life in a open, liberal society. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, as Greg Lukianoff [the liberal] president of the FIRE has often said, if you go through your university experience without ever being offended, you should demand a refund. You SHOULD hear things you find offensive.

        • “You seem to be suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being offended.”

          There is. Are you so insecure in your own mind that mere words are “offensive” to you? You’ve unwittingly placed yourself on the same emotional level as the Perpetually Aggrieved — those insecure and neurotic chat-puppets who clog the internet with their endless, repetitive complaints. Yes, taking offense at the words of strangers is neurotic, and those keyboard warriors who spend hours and hours each day, online, combating their anonymous demons, have serious personality disorders. They’re the real-life personification of the stick figure in this famous cartoon:

          • LanceSmith

            I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being offended and standing up for ones beliefs. Granted, there are people that are oversensitive about every little thing, but who are you (or me) to judge? And yes, you can be offended when others take offense (as you seem to be).

            “taking offense at the words of strangers is neurotic, and those
            keyboard warriors who spend hours and hours each day, online, combating
            their anonymous demons, have serious personality disorders.”

            Perhaps, but that’s a bit immaterial to the argument and really beyond the scope.

            What is wrong with the people like the author is they are asking government/administration/etc to fight their battles for them as if their opinion/beliefs trump those of others. After all, they might be wrong.

            Good clip on the subject:

          • Mike O’Brien

            Great cartoon. There is a lot of wrongheadedness on the Internet, and there is also much hardheadedness – as to which my favorite New Yorker cartoon is the following reprinted at the end of Jonathan Haidt’s excellent study of the “Righteous Mind”:

          • The father must be a libertarian. Politics colors every aspect of their lives. Maybe that’s why they’re always so miserable. Not that they’re the only ones. There are partisan obsessives of every persuasion cluttering the internet, and each one is certain of his righteousness.

          • Shootist

            your mother sucks algore dicks is fairly offensive I would think

          • RiseOfDivergents

            You are a quote miner, aint you? Are you a feminist ? just curious!

          • JerryM1957

            Kizone, I love the concept of the “perpetually aggrieved” and I apologize in advance for stealing/ repeating it in my future comments.

          • Have you ever noticed that the “perpetually aggrieved” repeat themselves daily, sometimes hundreds of times, expecting a different result this time? Didn’t someone somewhere define “insanity” as that sort of obsessive-compulsive behavior?

          • Greg Sellers

            Yea, that’s a cool concept.

          • Greg Sellers

            Oops. Me too, I’m offended regularly.

          • crydiego

            There is not.

        • Greg Sellers

          Me too. I’m offended regularly.

      • Greg Sellers

        Very funny.

      • M Mueller

        One can be offended without wanting to censor the offender. That’s the point you little PC censors don’t get.

    • Michael Ejercito

      Here is a better question. How will this affect the value of their degrees?

  • Bob

    “Given the fearful climate that many students have cited in the past few months, the University must take the issues of diversity and inclusion into account when writing about the importance of free speech.”

    You mean the “fearful climate” ginned-up by students like Mr. Perez and his thoroughly debunked story about POC versus POC racism? What a farce! Get rid of racial studies classes/majors and the “fearful climate” disappears. 99% of students focus on school. It’s the 1% who believe “victimhood” is a means to social power that twist this politically correct nonsense into wrongheaded “university action”.

    • BrigidBernadette

      Fearful climate, WTF–I picture them trembling in the halls, terrified. They don’t know fear. If you played them a Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce concert, they’d collapse in paroxysms of terror, having never heard naughty free speech before. Show trials and gulags will be the next idea from these turds.

  • Quixote

    Yes indeed, as Greg Sellers points out directly below, what about Charlie Hebdo? One would think that in response to this event, the Maroon Editorial Board would become aware of the moral problems involved in trying to suppress “hate speech” on American campuses. Have you no understanding of the relationship between cultural vitality and freedom of expression? Have any of you read John Stuart Mill? Apparently not, because it’s a very limp vision of liberty that seems to be at play in the background here. (Not that there aren’t any problems with the committee’s statement, but I will address them in a separate comment on the other article.)

    • politicalcynic

      “Have none of you read John Stuart Mill”?

      Sadly-I’m guessing MOST of those who play the “free speech but…” card have NEVER read JSM-which is very unfortunate.

  • KiteFlyer89

    A newspaper saying this! A newspaper!!! You all need to quit your jobs, quit your studies, and join up with the local Maoists to take down art deemed too problematic. Alternatively, join up with your local religious right evangelical church. They abide by the same logic.

    • Me10

      1st paragraph +1
      2nd paragraph -1

    • Libscansuckmyass

      I abide by the same logic as an evangelical? Seriously? I’m just shaking my head at your own bigotry and stupidity.

      • LanceSmith

        Actually, I fully see where he is coming from. The ideology you are pushing is not all that different from that pushed by the worst right-wing evangelical church. Ideologues through history try to outlaw speech they don’t like. It is not a false equivalency to equate “hate speech” laws/rules to their anti-blasphemy laws.

        The answer to bad/offensive speech is more speech … not laws/rules. Last I checked the vast majority of college students are adults. They can take it.

        • KiteFlyer89

          ding-ding-ding, you’ve got it.

        • rick

          It’s left wingers who censor speech these days.

    • hippecampre

      Like the comment, but would point out that this country has been Protestant since the beginning and despite the moral pressure exerted by the Protestants, free speech was always intact under Protestant majority. It is only now that the country is becoming more atheist that free speech is coming under the gun.

  • Steve Griffin

    Apparently the Maroon has concluded that the narrower the definition of free speech, the easier it becomes to defend.

    • Bakaiya

      I have a suggestion for an alternative name for this paper. And it won’t require any new letters…

  • Jenny Everywhere

    Scratch “hate speech” and insert “thought crime”. Fixed it for you.

    • tyrannicide


  • Dbom

    I can’t wait to see what speech is acceptable from you fools…this year.

    I’m sure next year there will be less speech to choose from, and so on and so on.

    You are all moral and real idiots who have no idea what the ramifications of your stupid ideas will be. And I mean that in the most hateful way possible.

    • Dbom

      PS- you “guys” sound like a bunch of pansies. Grow a pair and deal with life- it’s hard brother, it’s hard…

      • rick

        I’m offended that you call students at my alma mater “pansies.” This could be interpreted as a slur against homosexuals, which, in this context, is particularly inappropirate. The correct phrase is “weenie nerd wimps whose education is paid for by Mommy and Daddy”.

  • RiseOfDivergents

    this paper needs to be shut down and editorial board should not find a job anywhere in the world. wow what a disgrace, in a land of free. You guys are making this a land of freaks.

    • “this paper needs to be shut down and editorial board should not be able to find a job anywhere in the world.”

      Oh man, the irony of condoning censorship, jobs-blacklisting and deportations within the context of this story…it’s almost as if you’re unaware of your own words!

      • RiseOfDivergents

        These people are anti constitution and anti people and public has right to know these scums.

        • embala

          Yeah, but people who are anti-Constitution still have the right to speak their minds. Even hate speech is free speech, remember?

          I appreciate when the fools or crazies in the room are allowed to let me know who they are. It lets me know whom I shouldn’t let out of my sight.

          • RiseOfDivergents

            I agree with you. It makes sense.

  • You might consider a name change to the Chicago Orwell.

  • TheDevilsTowelboy

    Imagine if Orwell was still alive.

    “Hate speech” has become another meaningless term. Now, it is a linguistic cafeteria. Anything that deviates from social justice orthodoxy can be branded “hate speech”, censored and its author branded as an unperson and banished from the kingdom.

    Who is going to have the balls to reclaim academia from the cultural marxist commissars? Not holding my breath. No optimism of in my lifetime.

  • politicalcynic

    Questions: Who defines hate speech? You? Liberals? Feminists? Those who killed Charlie?

    Standing for censorship based on loose definitions (as you are doing) simply puts you in the same camp as Islamic terrorists-just at a different level.

    • lukuj

      Their definition of hate speech is anything they don’t agree with, which makes them feel guilty, or has the possibility of making anyone who isn’t pro- life, anti- gay marriage, religious( except for Muslims), conservative, or anti- illegal immigration feel bad.

  • Me10

    That might make a tortured kind of sense in a country without a broad First Amendment . Perhaps you should go there and make the case. I hear Russia’s nice in the summer.

  • Carey Cuprisin

    You need to be more clear about what you want.

    On one hand, you want open and free expression, which is not compatible with censorship.
    On the other hand, you want a productive and creative learning environment, which is not compatible with harassment.

    (It would also be nice not to be inundated with right-wing trolls when you suggest that some speech might be hateful and not conducive to fostering an open learning environment, but I digress.)

    I sympathize with your goals and actively share them.

    But I think editorials like this one are limp and unhelpful. I won’t go as far as Greg Sellers because I doubt anyone is being a pussy ass, but I’m confused about what you mean when you write that “condemning hate speech would not have detracted from a strong defense of free speech — it would simply have clarified it.” If you mean that the University ought to express its disapproval of certain speech (“condemn it”), then I agree with you completely.

    If you mean instead that the University ought to “regulate” this kind of speech, absent other behavior, then you need to tell us what kind of regulations you would support. You need to tell us how this “regulation” would be compatible with the open discourse that you say you favor.

    It’s not that hard to do. For example, you might say that you favor a University policy supporting all professors who make a rule that no student will use any “hate speech” or racial slurs in their class, as defined by the professor. Fine. That rule is compatible with widely accepted prohibitions and norms against disrupting class discussions, and even free-speech absolutists would find it hard to explain how this is equivalent to censorship. But I wonder whether you could come up with a list of “hate speech” that the University should “regulate” as a general matter, and I wonder if you’d like to be more specific about the consequences you think the University ought to impose on students who use this “hate speech” against someone in a campus coffee shop, or in a dorm, or during a basketball game.

    I frankly doubt that you could come up with such a list, and I doubt you could come up with any consequences that would be truly compatible with the “open discourse” you say you favor.

    Rather than focus narrowly on speech, I think you’d be much better served by focusing on “harassment,” and the differences between the two. Harassment, it seems, will often be speech-plus some other behavior that clearly distinguishes it from simply the expression of an offensive belief or opinion. Offensive opinions and offensive speech need protection, full stop. Harassment, obviously, does not. Fortunately, the two are not identical.

    College students have been trying for decades to reconcile a defense of free speech with the recognition that harassment destroys the open environment that free speech makes possible. They’ve repeatedly made the mistake of redefining harassment simply as offensive or “hate” speech of whatever label, and this is a mistake. Don’t keep making it.

  • Bakaiya

    Basically, censorship is freedom? This is a writing project on 1984, right? Please tell me it is.

  • MrBillwulf

    “The University needs to clearly differentiate hate speech and offensive speech. Hate speech is defined as ‘speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits,’ according to the American Bar Association.”

    That ABA definition does nothing to differentiate “hate speech” from “offensive speech.” In fact, it conflates the two such that merely being offended by a speech act transforms it into hate speech. Also note the catchall phrase “other traits.” Ultimately, the definition is so broad that anything could be construed as hate speech.

    • TedMunch

      “anything could be construed as hate speech” – and everything is so construed by those inclined to be offended. Certain groups are empowered to take offense in the PC power hierarchy, while others are not. “Hate speech” is simply a tool used by the former to silence the latter.

  • Jon Snow

    Hate speech is so nebulous a concept that there’s no way this wouldn’t be used as a tool against people you dislike. I say that I don’t believe in god. That might offend some people who do. Now I am guilty of ‘hate speech’. When we alter the rules around those who are the most offended, suddenly we will find people who are even more offended than that. If you find yourself so easily offended by words, it’s time for some introspection. I never though I’d see universities willing to sacrifice freedoms to cater to the weak.

  • wiselatina2theright

    So you are saying that at the University of Chicago …the Charlie’s of the world would not be welcomed or allowed to print what they see fit? Seriously? I find a lot of what the UC Professors say about our nation, conservatives, christians, pretty insulting and offensive. Does that constitute “hate speech” at UC?

  • wiselatina2theright

    Perhaps North Korea, ISIS, China, Iran, Iraq can provide you with some helpful tips on what constitutes “hate speech” “offensive speech”, etc. Maybe all of you need to spend a semester abroad at any one of said nations just to get a glimpse of what it means to control “hateful and offensive” speech.

  • Bradford Jones

    I hate to tell you that you’ve stumbled upon the right answer right there in your own piece.

    “…all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel.”

    Format that “is” in bold and that’s about it. Are you so conditioned to speech codes that you no longer recognize free speech? How have you not learned that the speech which needs to be protected is that speech which others will be upset about, whether the “victim” is in power or just a regular old person. Deal with it.

  • EB71

    As a UC alumni, I am sickened by your utter ignorance of what free speech really means. If petty fascists are what the UC is putting out now, good riddance.

  • SJD
  • Shogun1x

    Sounds good on paper, but in practice, it won’t work. Who decides what is hate speech? This would just get abused to shut down people who disagree.

  • TheDarkhorse8888 .

    Is this real life? You guys are shamefully ignorant.

  • Shogun1x

    “all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel.” – as it should be.

  • lordhelmet

    What a joke. Pathetic wankers.

    • rick

      Don’t insult people who masturbate by comparing them to these kids.

  • Jeff

    How is anyone on this editorial board going to operate in the real world. They want to limit free speech to only speech which they agree with or which supports their opinions. They are a bunch of coddled babies. Life is full of people and experiences that will hurt, insult, and disappoint you. Get over it. Modern day college campuses have evolved into institutions of thin skinned children who obsess over race and gender 24/7. Hopefully Zimmer and Isaacs have enough balls to stand by their original report and tell the editorial board to fuck off.

  • Cruxius

    Everyone who lives in Chicago is ugly.

  • Sven_Hunkstrom

    The premise implicit in this kind of thinking is that minorites and women can’t compete on a level playing field when it comes to an open marketplace of ideas. How illiberal.

  • Kenton McCarthy

    Glad I was too stupid to get in.

  • Syllabus

    Name of the paper is “Chicago Maroon”. If this is representative of the calibre of thought produced here, the name strikes me as quite apposite.

  • vance9281

    Change Maroon to Moron & you will have the perfect name for your paper.

  • KC Ruby

    It’s pretty simple. If liberals can convince enough lemmings that any expression that offends should be outlawed, it will eventually extend to expressions that run contrary to liberal ideas (i.e. expressions they define as “triggers” or “microaggressions”). At that point, they will have successfully outlawed dissent to their worldview – Mission Accomplished. I will revise this theory as soon as they book Dick Cheney to speak at Commencement.

  • HauteJuju

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    • Sarcasm is impotent.

    • rick

      The dumbasses at the Maroon don’t get the reference.

  • JoeC

    Absolutely pathetic! This is the thought police in action!! Try actually reading the First Amendment! You have no right not to be offended! The #1A is especially to protect speech you don’t like! Orwell and Communists like the Castros would be proud!

  • Cleveland Sumpter

    so can someone call his roommate a faggot

    • Greg Sellers

      I had one, did sometimes. He was kind of proud of it,really…

  • Pamela Lange

    Spell check didn’t catch the name of your newspaper. It’s obviously spelled M-O-R-O-N

    • Pamela Lange

      Oops… Guess that’s hate speech. Come arrest me.

      • rick

        They would have, but the department of pre-crime needs more funding from Mommy and Daddy.

    • rick


  • Dave Love

    Maybe people who engage in unacceptable speech need political re-education. It was very popular with the Soviets. On the other hand, maybe the authors of this editorial should shoot themselves. I wonder, would it be hate speech, speech that only intends to tear down, to say, “Have you no sense of decency sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?”. Doesn’t sound very inclusive to me.

  • maggie galalgher

    I am so proud of the University of Chicago for standing up for core Liberal, democratic principles. So sad you students do not understand the example you are being given. Esp. this week, after what has happened in France.

    • rick

      Yes, it’s beautiful.

  • Randy Zabel

    The lack of awareness shown by the “authors” of this editorial is mind boggling. That staff members of a French periodical were willing to sacrifice their lives for true freedom of expression, shows the contrast between these students are those who understand why freedom is so valuable.

  • five01c3

    More Cultural Marxist decay and degeneracy from the extreme left wing’s effete hipsters and wannabe SJWs. The “Chicago Moron” more like it.

    “Hate speech” protects groups that deserve hate, and are worthy of hate, and attempts to shield them from the truth about themselves. F— you.

  • Pat_Loudoun

    In a sane world, these children would be getting a lot of free advice from editors and publishers all over the world, telling them to grow up and not publish such drivel.

    But, MSNBC, Salon, The NY Times and dozens of other institutions are filled with people who really don’t disagree. Hey kids, you have learned nothing.

  • Jeremy Meister

    “Free” means unregulated.

    You can’t regulate the Hell out of something and then label it “free”.

    I like how this editorial is coming in newspaper: an outlet that exists due to free speech/press.

    And they’re printing articles about how these things are dangerous.

  • Fascism abounds at U of C. Sad.

  • Al

    It’s interesting how the article criticizes the University, saying they should “clearly differentiate hate speech and offensive speech” when in the next sentence they define hate speech as “speech that *offends*, threatens, or insults groups”, based on race, etc. The real gist of the issue is that these students do not know, or seem to care, that what construes “hate speech” and what construes “offensive speech” is not a clear line, and thus nearly anything offensive can be interpreted as such.

    According to this definition, any of the cartoonists killed in the recent attacks in Paris would have been banned from speaking on campus because their work “offends… groups … based on religion”, as exists in the definition of hate speech. Theo Van Gogh would have been banned as well had he ever visited campus, and had he not been stabbed to death. For that matter, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and anyone else who would dare criticize specific religions would also be banned under the all-inclusive definition of hate speech.

    Anyone who criticizes Catholics for tolerating sex abuse: banned. Anyone who criticizes people in Iran for allowing the government to execute homosexuals: banned. Anyone who criticizes Saudis for opressing women: banned. What do all these things have in common? They “offend… groups… based on national origin” or “religion”. In fact, I’m sure nearly every speaker, especially politicians, have said something offensive to at least one person’s sensibilities when they visited U of C, and so basically all of them could be banned. When one opens the door for censorship based on offense, everything becomes included under that definition given enough time.

    • cjm69

      Unfortunately, I suspect that the authors’ intent was obscured by ambiguous writing. Like you, I initially read it as “differentiate hate speech [from] offensive speech,” and found myself increasingly disquieted by the rest of the editorial as I read it. It seems more likely that it was meant as “differentiate hate speech and offensive speech [from acceptable speech],” which would have made their illiberal intent much clearer up front.

  • Freedom of speech as long as your speech is politcially correct!

  • Machean

    The basic problem with this argument is, what happens if “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups” also happens to be true? Someone needs to reread “On Liberty.”

  • Code of the West

    So in order to ensure free speech, we have to limit free speech? Is that about right?

  • Sony Sunshine

    People used to take pride in their ability to argue rationally with all comers. Now these adults have to wear diapers in case they come across a triggering word or idea.

  • PNWShan

    No one has a right not to be offended. I am ashamed that I went to the University of Chicago, once a great university and now a mere tool of fascists who want to control thought through shutting down and controlling speech.

    • Doug

      Well, the students are calling for censorship but their elders, the faculty and administration, are holding steadfastly to the principles of free speech. So don’t give up on UC.

      • barnburner

        These students learned it from someone. Fact is they’re just repeating what they’ve been taught by the radicals in the humanities and identity classes. They are the problem.

        • cjm69

          I may not agree with the authors of this piece, but I know better than to assume that UofC students are mere empty receptacles for their professors’ ideology.

          (Or to assume that their professors collectively speak with any single ideological voice, for that matter. The university is still a bastion of robust free expression, this editorial notwithstanding.)

          • rick

            I’m not so sure. I had thought of the authors as nerds, weenies, wimps and whiners, but “empty receptacle” might be the right term.

      • PNWShan

        Yes, I was heartened to read that the original report DID call for freedom of speech. I wonder about who is teaching the students who are complaining about it, however.

    • rick

      The faculty seem like they are still doing ok. It’s the admissions committee that accepted the Marooners that’s the problem.

    • Greg Sellers

      Oh come on. Do your job and stop whining.

  • des111168

    Each and every one of you on the editorial board is a disgrace. Shame on you.

  • cas47

    Vous n’etes pas Charlie?

  • cas47

    There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

  • JDW

    Will “diversity and inclusion” include white, male heterosexuals? — this group is legally discriminated against at all levels of government, and seems to be the go-to punching bag for Leftists.

    • rick

      No. White males need to undergo a Maoist self-criticism of their White privilege. The Maroon checks up on the White male to make sure they have done their penance.

  • I really hope this is parody. But just in case it isn’t….

    Being offended is a CHOICE. You can’t avoid “offensive” speech because anyone may choose to be offended. Or not. I suggest you not be offended so easily that you’re inspired to quiet the speech of others.

    Further, diagnosing so-called “hate speech” would require the ability to peer into the heart of the speaker. In other words, endorsing “hate speech” or a “hate crime” is endorsing the concept of thought crimes. YIKES.

    The whole point of free speech protections is to protect unpopular speech. Only allowing the speech of which you approve, which is what you’re hinting around at, is not *free* speech. At least be intellectually honest about your position and present a defense for not-free speech and thought crimes.

    I suggest you follow your own advice and “be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from [your] own” even, if not especially, when you question the motives of the speaker. I don’t get the feeling you’re anywhere close to it.

    You kids are frightening. This might sound harsh, but I hope none of you ends up in a position of power.

  • Carolyn C

    This is article is not “effective or responsible discourse.” It is hateful to Americans and it sends a threatening subversive message.

  • FactsNotFallacies

    Why the support for fascism in this article?

    • rick

      ‘Cause Fascism and Statism and campus Leftism are the same thing.

  • damn hippies ruin everything.

  • roccolore

    Democrats hate free speech because they support Islam.

    • Dave Love

      Your mom blows goats

      • roccolore

        Shows how immature you are.

        • Greg Sellers

          Hey, I can step up to anyone’s drivel. Your mom blows jellyfish.

      • Greg Sellers

        I saw yer mom

  • Chuck Vipperman

    I hate millenials. God help us.

  • Sulla Felix

    So, who gets to decide what’s ‘hate speech’? Can you tell me that? Which one of you self-proclaimed objective journalists determine what’s hate speech and what’s not? Because I’m certain hate speech will be defined by ANY of you as that which you disagree with. Am I right?

    The fact is, freedom of speech necessarily includes speech you don’t like. Even ‘hate’ speech. Get over yourselves. You cannot and will not be the arbiters of what people on campus are allowed to say and debate.

    It’s amazing to see such drivel from supposedly intelligent, educated people. But then, logic courses aren’t taught much any more are they?

  • Im_Rick_James

    You people are embarrassing yourselves. Seriously.

  • Tim Buun

    students must be prepared to listen to opinions that differ from their own. Speech that challenges commonly held assumptions can be beneficial.

    Question: When does a difference of opinion become hate speech?
    Answer: It becomes hate speech when someone like me with conservative views, disagrees with someone like the author of this trash heap of ridiculousness. They are however, allowed to say whatever they want about my views.

  • Vikram Reddy

    “While it is important for students to challenge each other’s opinions, this should not come at the expense of students’ mental well-being or safety.”

    Wow. What an embarrassment. You guys are a joke of an editorial board. The problem for many of you is that the most minor challenge to your opinions constitutes a challenge to your mental well-being, therefore opinions contrary to your own are allowed. Pathetic. The lack of intelligent thought and adherence to cherished values is sad.

    • Mike Larrazzo

      You used the word “p*thetic” and though you didn’t use it against me (indeed, you used it to judge those with an opinion of those with whom I disagree), I have been triggered, as it brings me back to a time when I was called that dreadful word – a word so cutting, I can’t even spell the word in its entirety.
      Now I must lay down – the PTSD is kicking in again.

  • Libscansuckmyass

    You all need to pick new careers. You are clearly imbeciles with zero brain matter. If you are truly this stupid, I wonder how you are even in a college. Maybe try again when you grow your big boy and girl hair? Because the stupidity I just read can only have been written my immature, ignorant children who know nothing about reality.

  • Libscansuckmyass

    If attending college makes you this ignorant and stupid, I’m telling my kid to take up a trade so she doesn’t become like these clowns.

  • tomcfuller

    The worst hate speech I hear, regularly, comes from the mouths and pens of “progressives” directed toward Christians, especially those who believe practicing homosexuality is a destructive behavior. What’s the difference in a Muslim calling you “infidel,” a KKK member calling you “n…..lover,” and a progressive calling you “homophobe”? It’s all hate speech. The difference is, some is PC and some isn’t.

  • BrigidBernadette

    You wrote: “…all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel.”

    Yes, this is exactly how it works here, in America. You are going to literally pick and chose the words that come out of people’s mouths, huh. This is like a playground version of real life. What has happened to universities? They have been drained of all intellectual vitality, and are now bloodless totalitarian Kafka-esque neutered hell-holes of sameness and psycho-babble. Socrates would puke at this disgusting development. You lot would be right at home in Saudi Arabia, or with the Taliban. Maybe you can stand on street corners in Chicago and smack people with sticks when you hear them cursing each other, like the Vice & Virtue Police, go on, give it a try, what’s the worst that can happen, in Murderland. Very disturbing that we would even hear of this type of anti-freedom rhetoric coming from students, the amount of control over others they seek to wield is perverse. You don’t deserve a college education if you have to beg the university to regulate your words or thoughts.

    • You must go through a lot of diapers. Is all this hate worth the expense?

      • Greg Sellers

        Yep, let’s try to be civil, shall we?

  • corvelay

    This editorial exists because the Maroon editors simply can’t conceive that the speech they want to university to crack down on might one day appear in their own pages. It’s only those other, evil people whose speech we need to control, and there’s no way the same logic could be turned against the Maroon because it’s obviously on the right side of history.

  • Nice going! Do you know what you’ve done, Maroon Editorial Board? According to the keyboard warriors at anarcho-libertarian propaganda site, “The country, our civilization and the world in general is doomed” because of one editorial at one newspaper at one university. Is my cited quotation just a hysterical anomaly? Apparently not, judging by the comments below.

    Get a grip, kids. Free speech means the freedom to say dumb things, as you have unwittingly demonstrated. And the world never ends. It just gets noisier.

    • Greg Sellers

      Nice. Indeed!

  • LanceSmith

    Did you not just see what happened in France last week????

    Google Jonathan Rauch ‘In Defense of Being Offensive’

    Watch his clip. He is a gay activist who also understands the value of free speech.

    Ultimately, you don’t get to define what is and what is hate speech since it is undefinable. Universities – and ultimately our society – can’t grow and prosper as long as people get to shut down speech they don’t like.

  • Noah Johnson

    This article offends me, and my taking offense is based on the non-enumerated “other trait” in your cited definition of hate speech. That trait is a person who “Actually Understands What the First Amendment Means and, More Importantly, Protects”; accordingly, this article should be filed under non-permissible hate speech and be banned. Forever. And ever.

    The American Bar Association didn’t define what hate speech is (and even if they did, they have no authority of law, much less authority over vocabulary). The Supreme Court, however, DOES have the authority of interpreting the law, including the Constitution, and have upheld such hateful speech as the protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers with homophobic language and white supremacists burning a cross as worthy of First Amendment protection.

    As the editorial board for a paper of such an esteemed liberal (little “l”) institution, you should fear an autocratic restriction on the marketplace of ideas, ESPECIALLY those that are considered hurtful or offensive. And yet, that is precisely what you are calling for. Unbelievable.

    • Greg Sellers

      Agree with that. To me, liberal means tolerance. Even of things I may find personally abhorrent.

  • We need to preserve freedom of speech by shutting down this newspaper right now!

    • Greg Sellers

      He he

  • Joseph

    excuse me, has anyone seen my balls? i thought i had them here somewhere…

  • clod

    How quaint, another opinion from someone who doesn’t understand the fundamental give and take of free speech. If you allow regulation of speech to extend beyond anything but extremely narrowly tailored, well defined categories (ex: shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater) then you give the regulators de facto power to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech. That’s all well and good if the regulators are Platonic philosopher kings, but if they come from the midget minded administrative class or from those interested in centralization of authority (and history has shown more often than not one of those groups is exactly where your regulators will come from), then our first amendment rights are rights in name only.

    So to prevent ourselves from opening the door to tyranny we accept that every once in a while you’re going to just have to live with idiots who have nothing better than hate speech to contribute.

    I find it sad and depressing that today’s allegedly educated class can’t handle this simple calculus.

    • Greg Sellers

      Great point, esp. The platonic ref!

  • Lupe

    These people call themselves educators? The name of the paper should be the Chicago MORON

    • They’re students. That’s why they call it a “student newspaper.”

  • Earl of Sandwich

    “”Emma Broder, Editor-in-Chief, Joy Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Jonah Rabb, Managing Editor / The Maroon Editorial Board consists of Eleanor Hyun, Harini Jaganathan, Kristin Lin, Kiran Misra, and Jake Walerius.”

    Just making sure the names of the relevant characters are printed here, so that any self-respecting publication can be sure to never hire any of these people for any job more important than maybe cleaning the toilets @ Rolling Stone.

    • Charming! So many petty thugs here, airing their not-so-secret revenge fantasies. Your little tattle-tail list will have absolutely no effect on their future employment, but your attempt at a McCarthy-style blacklist is most endearing.

      • RiseOfDivergents

        That is not going to be the case, A poster is in making and will be circulated. A typical LIbtard tactic to dish out on others, the question is can they take it?

    • rick

      You don’t really think that these whiny students could clean toilets properly, do you?

  • America has always had a tradition of “free speech yes, but…” In the 1950s McCarthy era, it was “free speech yes, but you can’t preach communism,” and if you did you would be shunned, probably fired, and maybe even end up in legal trouble. In the 1960s Viet Nam era, as I personally remember well, it was “free speech yes, but you can’t say that the Viet Cong are on the right side and America should lose.” You could say the war was misguided or unwinnable, you could even get away with saying it was wrong, but if you went on to say that the other side was right, you’d end up in all sorts of trouble, and few would defend your right to say so. This editorial’s position is the current form of “free speech yes, but …”

    Thomas Jefferson, who probably did more than any single person to found the United States in its constitutional form, was such a free speech absolutist that he defended the right of US citizens to advocate dismantling the Republic he founded: “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

  • Mackojr35

    So liberal retards don’t see the irony of this editorial? Liberalism is a serious mental disorder!! Whoever wrote this has every right to EXPRESS their thoughts. I however have every right to tell you how fucking stupid you are. Grow a pair of balls and stop being little pussies. You don’t get to decide what speech is or isn’t permitted. You and your messiah Obama can move to North Korea or Cuba if this is how you feel

    • Greg Sellers

      You know,I’m as liberal as they make them, so let’s try to keep politics out of this. And I do think that Mr. Obama will go down in history as one of the great American presidents.

  • Mackojr35

    Who wrote this? Lenin? Mao? What a disgrace this is

  • spiderbucket

    The Wuss Generation in action. Coddled by helicopter parents, unable to be creative, begging for attention – I bet my life they will become the most hardcore right wing generation we’ve seen since the 50’s once they get out into the real world and have to deal with life.

    • cjm69

      I sincerely hope you’re wrong. Most of the millennials I know, for what it’s worth, are very open-minded on social issues, to a degree that would’ve been considered downright radical in the 1950s.

    • Greg Sellers

      Not helpful.

  • ucstudent16

    I hope that “members of the Chicago Maroon Editorial Board’ is not one of the classes of people whom it would be considered “hate speech” to “offend or insult,” because otherwise the forthcoming post would have to be, in the words of that esteemed editorial board, “eradicated.”

    Of all the inanity to come from this great journalistic institution, this is probably the stupidest. (Offense very much intended). Errors both moral and factual abound, and books could be written on why they are simply wrong. (Indeed, we are in luck: books have been written. See: On Liberty. Mill, John Stuart).

    The shoddy thinking comes right in the first paragraph. From the sages of the Maroon: “We agree with this central idea—that the University must protect open discourse. However, this report lacks clarity on what constitutes ‘effective and responsible’ discourse.” The fallacy is obvious: protecting open and free discourse is antithetical to defining what is “effective” or “responsible” discourse. Responsible, I must ask, according to whom? The University? The panoply of social justice groups on campus? The college democrats? The college republicans? Or, God help us, the Maroon?

    While journalists are being murdered for offending certain groups, the Maroon Editorial Board is placing themselves, to borrow a favorite phrase of today’s progressives, on the “wrong side of history.” Shameful.

  • So do i have this right? The principle seems to be that I can have free speech but not hate speech meaning it’s not free speech if I say something you hate.

    • Read the comments below. Most of the people here hate the editorial board, their opinions and their freedom of speech and would, if they could, silence them. Talk about hypocrisy.

      • WhiteRabbit3

        Can you point to a comment that said the editorial board should be silenced?

        Strongly disagreeing with an opinion is not censorship. In fact, quite the opposite.

        • Can you point to a comment that said the editorial board should be silenced?
          I’ll point to two:

          This paper needs to be shut down and editorial board should not be able
          to find a job anywhere in the world…get out of my country. North korea would suit you well.

          “Shut down” and blacklisted…that’s one way of silencing them.

          Emma Broder, Editor-in-Chief, Joy Crane, Editor-in-Chief, Jonah
          Rabb, Managing Editor…Just making sure the names of the relevant characters are printed here, so that any self-respecting publication can be sure to never hire any of these people for any job

          Again, a call for blacklisting, complete with a McCarthyesque naming of names. So much for free speech.

          • WhiteRabbit3

            Point made. You found two, which we both agree are misguided.
            You did, however, use the word “most”, which we can also both agree is not true.

          • “Most” didn’t state it in such explicit terms.

          • Greg Sellers

            You are just making the same mistake. They have the right to say what they want to say.

  • roccolore

    The Muslim Brotherhood Students Association will make sure the cartoons are never published. Or the Chicago chapter of Hamas-linked CAIR.

  • Ted_Levy

    Thus the famous expression: “What a Maroon…”

  • skeptic

    Wow. I thought U of Chicago were supposed to be intelligent. This reads like a 14 year old’s tumblr blog.

  • cjm69

    It’s heartening to see that the comment thread under this editorial is almost universally in opposition to the position it stakes out. Of course, there are the predictable attempts by some posters to project their own political bêtes noires onto the piece, accusing its authors of being everything from “libtards” to “fascists.” Even setting those aside, though, the disapproval is resounding.

    The thing worth noting here is that support for genuine freedom of expression (and, correspondingly, opposition to it) is doesn’t actually align with traditional political positions. It’s orthogonal to them. My own politics are progressive, so in general I’m probably more sensitive to and concerned about (attempts at) censorship and oppression from the right, but I’m well aware that they can come from any direction. The incident on campus just a few months ago, where columnist Dan Savage (of all people!) was accused of committing “transphobic hate speech” after a seminar discussion at the Institute Of Politics, exemplifies this. Savage’s political progressivism is hardly a secret, and over the last 20 years he’s done more to open up public discourse about sexuality and equality than any three other writers I can think of, yet he was attacked — from the left! — far more aggressively than the genuinely hateful Rick Santorum, who spoke at the IOP only a week earlier.

    As a U of C alumnus, I’m concerned that the authors here don’t seem to get this. They seem blithely unaware of the Orwellian irony inherent in statements like “The report’s failure to clearly define hate speech implies that all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel” and “labeling these types of speech ‘narrow exceptions’ minimizes the seriousness and harmfulness of this kind of speech” and “the University [must discuss] where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable speech fall.” Some of the nastier attacks in this comment thread may even motivate them to dig in their heels and convince them they’re right. They are not.

    If the Maroon’s editors want the university, and our society in general, to foster genuinely open, diverse, and robust discourse, they need to understand that any exceptions carved out MUST be narrow. They seem not to have noticed that the ABA’s definition of “hate speech” boils down to “speech that offends… or insults… based on [any] traits,” and that to embrace that is to embrace an exception so broad that it completely swallows the rule. Being offended is not in fact a “harm”; threatening or harassing someone is categorically different (and objectively discernible), whereas merely offending or insulting someone is inherently subjective and ultimately impossible to avoid. And, in the grand scheme of things, it is nowhere remotely near as harmful as placing boundaries around free speech. I hope they will allow the groundswell of opposition here to penetrate their sense of righteousness, and give serious consideration to the implications of what they have written.

    • Greg Sellers

      Yea, dude, I think everyone is grok king that stuff.

    • Greg Sellers

      Well said.

  • Rich Shapiro

    The movement to restrict “hurtful” or “offensive” or even “hate” speech — as apparently advocated by the editors of this publication — is foolish, counterproductive, and inevitably leads to a slippery slope that cannot be effectively managed. Like it or not “offensive” speech is constitutionally protected, and it is better that an idea or opinion — even ones the vast majority of us would find abhorrent — be out in the open so that it may be countered by the opposing viewpoint in the marketplace of ideas.

  • “Chicago Students Vow to Destroy ‘Hate Speech’ As Soon As They Figure Out What It Is”

    • The loudest defenders of “hate speech” tend to be pathological haters themselves.

  • WhiteRabbit3

    Laws and rules against “hate speech” are a plague on modern democracies. I will be charitable and assume that they start from good intentions, but they quickly turn into weapons to silence political opponents.

  • WhiteRabbit3

    The editorial board’s views are consistent with the idea that universities should be “safe places” where no one should violate anyone else’s delicate sensibilities, that causing emotional distress is akin to physical assault.
    And it’s all a bunch of hooey. The last thing a university should be is a place where one’s cherished views are protected. Rather one should be constantly assailed with competing views — some of them quite disturbing — that force one to think “Why do I hold this belief?”
    I pity students who graduate after being so emotionally and politically cloistered. They are ill prepared for the real world.

  • Greg Sellers

    “As a former editor of the grey city journal” I have to say that this is an awesome discussion! Stoked!

  • Greg Sellers

    And, don’t get me wrong. I’m proud of U of C, and grateful for what it made me.

  • Caleb50

    Lets say a student in a sociology class expresses this opinion “I think poverty rates in the black community are higher because black people tend to make poor choices”. And lets say that a few black students in that class are offended by that expressed viewpoint. I assume the editorial board would conclude that it is indeed hate speech. After all, some students were offended by virtue of their race. But if you create an environment where expressing those kinds of sentiments is out of bounds, then learning and critical thinking becomes impossible, outside of a very narrowly defined range of acceptable opinions, defined by the left of course. It actually makes the process of learning a complete farce. Moreover, it presupposes that we already know the answers to complex problems when in fact we don’t in many instances. And if discourse is narrowed in those contexts, then developing real understanding (and solutions) becomes unlikely if not impossible. And the stakes for being wrong are very high. Unfettered free expression matters and the Committee of Free Expression was correct in asserting that sentiment, in the broadest terms possible.

  • Lisa Bernstein

    This University’s dedication to free speech and its belief that through the airing not surpressing of ideas–good ideas, bad ideas, vile ideas, wonderful ideas–conversations will take place between people and change and challenge us all for the better in ways that may occasionally result in unpleasant things being said, but will ultimately over time result in a more robust civil society. This is the reason I have chosen to teach here, this is the reason I chose to attend the college. The free exchange of ideas is what defines the essence of this University and I am proud that the Committee chose to continue not errode the traditions that make this the best University in the world.

    • Greg Sellers

      Yep, totally. This University made me what I am today. I’m very proud of U of C!

  • Ilene Skeen

    I must be reading the wrong newspaper. This tripe is from the Chicago Moron.

  • jack

    “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” -Justice Holmes

  • rick

    Nah, you don’t believe in free speech. You believe in Orwellian censorship.

    Richard A. Crane, M.A., M.A., M.D.
    U of C 1977

  • ColoradoRob

    “failure to clearly define hate speech implies that all speech short of unlawful harassment is acceptable, no matter how vile or cruel.”

    WRONG! It means all speech short of unlawful harassment is protected. Not acceptable. Nice attempt at spin.

    “While it is important for students to challenge each other’s opinions, this should not come at the expense of students’ mental well-being…”

    WRONG! The 1st amendment protections on free speech trump your silly needs to not hear things that might make you sad.

    “labeling these types of speech “narrow exceptions” minimizes the seriousness and harmfulness of this kind of speech.”

    WRONG! Protecting speech says nothing about the seriousness of hate speech. It only protects it. As long as you’ve got the right to not listen to it, then it’s protected. Stop being such babies – you’re not in public school any more.

    “it must also discuss its nuances and where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable speech fall.”

    “The University needs to directly address hate speech for the good of productive discourse.”

    Whatever. As long as it protects protected speech, the university can do whatever it wants to discuss about acceptable and unacceptable. Again – some unacceptable speech is still protected. You guys are an editorial board? Really?

  • M Mueller

    vous n’êtes pas charlie

    • Larry_Sanger


  • An_Actual_Lawyer

    As an initial matter, I am surprised (and a little ashamed) that the editorial board of my alma mater’s student newspaper published this. But that being said, let’s get a few things straight.

    These are students at a private university asking their university for guidance on the use of hate speech on campus. None of these entities are government actors. No one is discussing anything beyond a private actor’s ability to say certain things on private property. This is not a First Amendment issue. The University of Chicago has the right to restrict speech on its campus, just as much as I have the right to restrict speech in my home. So get over yourselves.

    If you don’t understand why, for example, a parent would want to know if the university will permit a student group to yell “n!gger” in your daughter’s face on a daily basis before spending $48,000 a year on tuition, I will assume you haven’t had someone scream “n!gger” in your face while trying to attend O-Chem. Some people have. Again, no one is saying you should be arrested for yelling “n!gger.” They’re just asking if you’re practice is to let your guests yell “n!gger” at your dinner table before RSVPing for dinner. A reasonable request before dropping your tuition check off in the mail, in my opinion.

    Believe it or not, the University of Chicago is not charged with the responsibility of protecting anyone’s first amendment rights (even if someone’s rights were at risk although, here, they clearly are not). It is charged, however, with the protection of its students. Do the students need protection from hate speech? While the editorial board of the Chicago Maroon appears to think so, I’m not so convinced. Moreover, the potential harm that a hate speech ban would cause to open discourse would, in my opinion, greatly outweigh such considerations. My preference would be not to entrust anyone to define something as subjective as “hate.”

  • tyrannicide

    If the future of journalism is in the hands of these ignorant children, then Orwell’s prophecies have already come true. (And perhaps that was the case long ago, even pre-Snowden?) My advice to this “editorial board”? 1) Read the Constitution of the United States; 2) Read *Freedom for the Thought We Hate*, by Anthony Lewis; 3) Grow some fucking balls.

    p.s. The Left used to have a few ass-kicking powerhouses who understood what actually constituted a threat to a liberal democracy. Now, all they’ve got is pack of whiny-ass twats who talk double-speak and call it “truth.”

    p.p.s. Thank goodness for FIRE.

  • hmm

    The price of reaching the 4th ranked university status by us news and world is so obviously not worth the decrease in quality of student we’ve attracted in the process

  • obamaiscarter

    If your “mental well being” suffers because someone says something you find offensive, you don’t belong at one of the best universities in the United States, you belong in a freakin insane asylum. People who are so thin-skinned that they look like Slim Goodbody without the bodysuit should not be setting the parameters for debate and acceptable discourse at a university, nor should a university newspaper be pretending they are rationale. QUIT FUC*ING PANDERING TO THESE PEOPLE.

  • La Cabesa Roja

    This editorial is nothing but harmful hate speech. All the students responsible for writing and/or publishing said editorial should be expelled immediately.

    I also thank you for contributing to the effort to strip the word “safety” of all meaning. Speech, short of threats, has nothing to with actual safety, and if there was any justice in the world, any person who unironically talked about “emotional safety” would be publicly horse whipped until dead.

    This is Illinois, however, where criminal stalking is defined so broadly that arguing with your spouse about the housework constitutes a felony.

  • Larry_Sanger
  • regbs

    Ivy League rejects in a 3rd rate city no more connected to global happenings than Texas or Georgia, who at least have ocean coasts.
    If you want an image of domestic enemies of the Constitution, look no further than Western academia. Note the last names of Chicago’s leadership – never a demographic to support free speech.

  • crydiego

    It is difficult to express my surprise in what I just read in this editorial. I am shocked by the complete ignorence of the purpose, meaning and need for first amendment protections.
    I promise my support to any group or organization that embarks on teaching this university respect for the bill of rights, before a judge, in a court of law!

  • JdL

    The authors of this whiny, wrong-headed editorial need to read Peter Berkowitz’s excellent dissection at .

  • farkennel

    Just get it the fuck over with.ALL white heterosexual males are guilty of eye rape(thought crimes) and sundry other microagressions and should be held under close scrutiny by the authorities(federal and state and university)at their own expense and at no time ever be allowed to look any victim(anyone who isn`t a non white heterosexual male)in the eye.Enough is enough.

  • Michael Ejercito

    Truth is worth defending.

  • hippecampre

    What a bunch of lame commies. Free speech on your terms.
    Go back to Siberia.