It’s not about the no-hug, it’s free speech.
This is the achilles heel in Europe, and it’s leading to its own demise, the idea that government officials are going to dictate to us whats is good and proper speech, and not abuse that self imposed ”right”.
NOTE: The illegal alien was used by Obama and the Left media as a poster child of the ”dreamer” class.
What’s producing Gaby Pachecos is something we won’t get rid of by getting illegal immigration under control, however worthy that goal is.
Pacheco was brainwashed with the “hate speech” theme in American schools. Young people of all ethnicities and backgrounds have been brainwashed with it. They’ve been actively denied the opportunity to develop a capacity for logic and a knowledge of the American philosophy of liberty and government, and too many of them vaguely imagine that there is something called “hate speech” in U.S. law. They’ve been turned into the “friends on the left” that Ronald Reagan spoke of in his famous joke: they know so much that isn’t so.
To say that is not to say that the underlying culture isn’t different north and south of the U.S. border. It is, and that matters. But Gaby Pacheco grew up here; she isn’t a product of a foreign Latino culture. She’s a product of the American left.
What you didn’t hear about Ann Coulter and the illegal who wanted a hug (Video)
Matthew Boyle at Breitbart gives us a transcript:
“There’s freedom of speech and there’s also hate speech,” Pacheco told Coulter. “I wholeheartedly believe in our First Amendment right. But many of the things you say on TV, on the radio, in your books, not only do they incite fear—but they also incite hate. So I wanted to ask you if you feel you’re abusing your First Amendment rights and do you think legitimately what you are saying is right?”
Coulter, of course, did not suffer this foolishness gladly.
“Well, two points,” Coulter said. “One is: you don’t understand the Constitution if you say there’s free speech and then on the other hand there’s hate speech –”
Pacheco cut her off: “No I know that under the law and the Constitution there are both—”
There was a brief verbal scuffle, but Coulter was able to make the salient point in response:
“No. There’s speech,” Coulter explained. “There’s not speech and hate speech. And judging by the last question, apparently you people can’t tell the difference in what I’ve actually said and some crazy parody site. Because — I don’t know what you think is ‘hate speech.’ I don’t engage in hate speech. I engage in speech. And yes, it’s part of the long, Anglo-Saxon tradition of thinking that with free speech, and the contest of ideas, the truth will emerge. It goes back to John Stuart Mill.”