Hans-Hermann Hoppe is finally able to tell his story of his academic inquisition at UNLV, all begun because one student in one of his lectures felt that his feelings had been hurt. Kudos to the ACLU for supporting professor Hoppe. Here was his crime (via this article comparing Hoppe's aggressive defense of himself with Lawrence Summers total capitulation):
violation of thought control was the view that homosexuals, along with others
who tend not to have children, have a higher than average time preference rate.
They are willing to trade more future income for present gratification than
others, such as parents.
Neither of these
claims is at all unexceptionable "“ within economics. Both would be widely agreed
to within this profession. Certainly, neither would raise any untoward number of
eyebrows within this discipline.
By the way, I am officially declaring that the term "hate speech", as currently used, has joined the ranks of completely useless terminology. This term is being used as a lever to attack the first amendment all over this country, and not just on campuses. Like any assault on fundamental rights, it begins by defining a very narrow category of speech that is so offensive that people will accept an exception to first amendment protections. Then, once that exception exists, the definition of hate speech is expanded to include, basically, "any speech I don't agree with". That's why I am opposed to any exceptions to the first amendment, even for outlawing hate speech. To be a true defender of the first amendment, you have to be ready to defend the speech rights of some of the most outrageous and grotesque people.