BY: JACK JURSNICH
Staff Writer
First Alert 4 reported that on Thursday, April 11, a man protested on the Meramec campus against Muslims, Jews, and members of the LGBTQ+ community, preaching about how they would all “go to Hell.”
The man was livestreaming under the YouTube profile called “Kingdom Reconcilers” and streamed two hours of himself telling specific people not to be “sinners.” I didn’t watch the full two hours, but I skipped around and found the interaction between this man and the students to be pretty entertaining.
To be honest, I am not too sure if this man actually believes what he says or if he’s just playing a character trying to stir up some drama. Also, I find it upsetting and ironic to see this man use his First Amendment rights to condemn others for using their First Amendment rights. Some people like Zainab Ahmad and some commenters of the livestream have considered the man’s protesting to be “hate speech” because his criticisms were directed at specifically Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ+ members.
There’s no denying his speech targeted these specific people and that his criticisms were grounded in hate, but this man is exercising his First Amendment right just like everyone else that decided to interact with him. For people to feel what the man said was “hate speech” would be the equivalent of the man feeling that the students’ responses were also “hate speech.”
So when people want to say “there has to be some kind of limit” to the First Amendment, then under that logic, I or anyone else could limit any kind of speech. Hate speech has become a subjective term for anyone. Technically, if people had any criticisms for this article, I could consider that “hate speech,” and if I were to limit such criticisms, then my articles would continue without scrutiny.
The only cure to “hate speech” is more speech.
For instance, Galileo — who first proposed the heliocentric model against the geocentric model — would have been considered a preacher of “hate speech” back in the 1600s, but because centuries went by of people having their own discussions and doing their own research, the heliocentric model of the solar system is now globally accepted. My example here points at the idea that if people and their beliefs aren’t allowed to be contested because they go against the collective narrative, how can their ideas truly be disproven?
The only way to disprove this protestor at the Meramec campus would be to ask him questions, challenge his beliefs, and argue civilly with the man, which I’m glad to see is exactly what the students were doing. For those who felt this man was spewing “hate speech,” how could anyone take anything he said seriously? If anyone felt offended by what he had to say, why care? Why take anything this man had to say personally and let it ruin the day?
The only way for this man to hurt anyone would be for someone to give his words meaning, and judging by the video, I don’t think even he knows what he’s saying. If I or anyone else believes that this man is running his mouth with nonsense, then let’s keep his mouth running and let him perjure himself. For all I know, this man was just trying to stir up a crowd for some views on his livestream.
