![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/APP-061820-Roberts-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\nTODD: So it\u2019s quite likely that the… Well, I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s “quite.” It\u2019s likely. But the Supreme Court\u2019s gonna hear a case on “the most offensive word,” and this would be ground on which, I would hope, we\u2019d not tread. But they\u2019re trying to discover, as John Roberts\u2019 court sometimes does, just brand-new aspects of the Constitution that no one\u2019s ever seen. It\u2019s the magic Roberts asterisk.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I hope that doesn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n
They\u2019re trying to figure out if having a really offensive word — for instance, the N-word or a slur\/racial slur scrawled onto the wall of an employer is grounds for employees to sue for hostile work environment. And one would assume that if someone scrawled something on the wall that was left there for months, that is a different issue than if someone scrawled something on the wall that was left there until, well, someone reported it; it was taken down.<\/p>\n
This comes from a real live case. The guy worked at a hospital, and from what he describes sounds like a horrible place to work. Sounds like it was a Dallas hospital. From what he describes, it sounds like it would be a very awful place to work. I wouldn\u2019t want to see people treated that way, and I don\u2019t think you\u2019d want to see people treated that way. But this caught my eye. This is the AP talking about this case.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/APP-20201-041521-scotus.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
They say, “Already, the court\u2019s two newest members, both appointed by President Donald Trump, are on record with seemingly different views. The case is also a test of whether the justices are willing to wade into the ongoing, complex conversations about race happening nationwide.” I\u2019m sorry. There are very few places where there\u2019s any complexity to the conversations about race happening in the United States.<\/p>\n
Critical race theory de-complexes that. Well, that\u2019s a terrible word. It makes it less complex. It makes it too simple because that\u2019s the point. It is about dividing people. It\u2019s very simple. “The problem with the world is ‘whiteness\u2019 that\u2019s caused by white people, and the problem with white people is they\u2019re white.” It\u2019s a circular issue. There\u2019s no complexity there.<\/p>\n
Likewise, the other way they\u2019re pushing this is Black Lives Matter, Inc., which is very, very easy. Black people never get a fair shake anytime, and all cops are murderers. There are so many complex issues that if we had the bravery to discuss it — as has been done on this program on countless occasions — there is nuance after nuance in relation to race. But the AP doesn\u2019t want that complexity.<\/p>\n
The scrawling of a word on a wall is not a particularly complex issue. It\u2019s, “That\u2019s a rude and horrible and dehumanizing word,” and that does not mean you can sue your employer out of existence. But that\u2019s not complexity they\u2019re seeking. Now, Rush… Remember when Rush talked about this case involving some frat boys out of OU who were denied their free speech rights by university for repeating offensive lyrics from a rap song?<\/a><\/p>\n RUSH: I remember way back when I was much younger when I first began to intellectually understand and talk about the whole concept of free speech as a constitutional right. I remember running into William F. Buckley, as many of you know, one of my heroes and idols. And Buckley was one of the first people I had heard say that the answer to offensive speech is more speech. The reaction to offensive speech is more speech, not restrictive. The only way to discredit offensive speech, which is specifically the kind of speech protected by the First — I mean, if everybody said what everybody agrees with you wouldn\u2019t need a First Amendment guaranteeing it.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/APP-062118-Rush-Constitution.jpg\")
<\/a>The First Amendment free speech clause exists because everybody knows you\u2019re gonna hear things that offend you. And particularly in the political arena, which is what the First Amendment free speech thing was really aimed at, they didn\u2019t want to limit political speech in any way, shape, manner, or form. And it\u2019s all because you know you\u2019re gonna hear things you don\u2019t like, you don\u2019t want to hear, you\u2019re gonna be offended by and just because you were offended was no grounds for stopping it. So the answer, the first theory that I came across in dealing with offensive speech, the answer was, more speech. The answer is not restricting speech. That doesn\u2019t help anybody. And I\u2019m starting to see this repeated now as sort of a cycle.<\/p>\n