http://tiny.cc/gpv1az
The First Amendment is unanimously agreed by both conservatives and liberals on the United States Supreme Court to protect hate speech. Precedent shows that the First Amendment goes so far as to potentially protect a right to express support for inter-ethnic mass violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio). The United States is an international outlier in this regard and anomaly in the modern world; do most sociologists in the US think that is that a good or bad thing? Note that if any professor in western Europe (or most other places in the world) published that same essay, they would be immediately issued a citation and significant fine, fired from their job, and prevented from holding a similar job in the future. Because the content in this instance is so violent and avowedely targeting a marginalized person, and because it has potential to incite inter-ethnic social violence, the professor would potentially or likely be criminally sentenced and imprisoned in most western European countries.
I'm deeply worried about where the United States is headed regarding inter-ethnic tensions. Many social arsonists appear to be splashing gasoline on the same fire from different angles. The historical record shows the type of speech the SUNY professor is using demonstrably does incite instances of hate crimes. Hate crimes usually beget vicious cycles of hate crimes that can potentially overtake societies.
I wonder whether this all may hinge on a reinterpretation of "obscenity," which is not considered protected as free speech. For example, lewd communications delivered in an offensive manner in public are not in themselves defensible as free speech, and can be potentially prosecuted as criminal harassment (whether a specific instance of lewd speech/behavior in public can be prosecuted as harassment depends specifically on the intention of the perpetrator toward onlookers; if a person behaves
...See full post lewdly in public with the intention to offend onlookers, especially if this is related to the perpetrator's own sexual gratification, that can be prosecuted as criminal harassment).
Note: the black petty bourgeoisie was denounced in strongly substantive political language by Malcolm X and Huey Newton. White leftists need to study that, and decide whether, regarding the core economic structual argument, they agree or disagree with the black leftist analysis of the black petty bourgeoisie. It would be irrational to describe white leftists as "racist" specifically on account of agreement with the black leftist analysis of the black petty bourgeoisie. Population warfare in the US against the black proletariat and underclass is well-documented as accelerating after the historical construction of the augmented black petty bourgeoisie.
Agreement with that analysis would also note the historical analysis of fascism by Marxists, which observed the petty bourgeoisie as fascism's mass base. University professors as a sub-class, including the most respected intellectual figures of their day (Heidegger), were a core pillar of fascism in Germany, while the proletariat was the main class in opposition to fascism (until opposition was crushed). The historical construction of the black petty bourgeoisie in its present augmented form in the US basically stems from a right-wing Nixon administration policy (affirmative action) designed to fight against the Black Panthers by enlarging a self-interested, mutable, careerist black professional class. Affirmative action was gradually over time removed in almost all sectors of the US economy, except in academia, wherein conversely there is presently a push to massively conceptually expand and entrench affirmative action beyond admittance and hiring and toward insitutions like tenure and even citations.
Recent decades of US history show specifically what institutions are the monetary base of this sub-class in academia, namely "non-profit" foundations/corporate philanthropies. These institutions are collectively analyzed by leftists through a Gramscian lens as: 1. an organic element of a political coalition centered on the Democratic Party which has committed more extreme political violence against black and other colonized people, arguably more than has the explicitly right-wing coalition of similar foundation entities around the Republican Party; 2. wielding control of social resources to enforce a class stratification dividing US society at most basic social level between people who have advanced degrees, and people who do not have advanced degrees who are functionally relegated to second-class citizenship status in the United States today.
http://sfonline.barnard.edu/navigating-neoliberalism-in-the-academy-nonprofits-and-beyond/dylan-rodriguez-the-political-logic-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/
https://truthout.org/articles/beyond-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/