Huffington Post’s senior culture writer, Zeba Blay, blasted Vice President Mike Pence on Monday for “perverting the idea of free speech itself” during his recent commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. However, her own editors had to correct her faulty understanding of the First Amendment.

The original version of Blay’s piece apparently contained an argument that the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect “hate speech.” The website’s editors later added a correction at the end of post: “An earlier version of this story indicated that the First Amendment never protects hate speech. It does.”

Even with the correction from her editors, Blay still attempted to defend the “speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, [and] administration-sanctioned political correctness” that the Vice President singled out for criticism during his commencement address.

The Huffington Post writer underlined that Pence’s “pristine ideal of ‘free speech'” is too often “used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities.” She cited how “figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher have invoked the ‘free speech’ argument when they’ve been called out, criticized, or boycotted for their rhetoric.”

Blay continued by dubiously claiming that “none of them, however, have actually had their speech curtailed,” and set up a straw man.

…They have never been thrown in jail for things like inciting racist and sexist abuse against comedian Leslie Jones, or complaining about Jews in America, or suggesting Muslims are inherently violent. Indeed, it wasn’t until Yiannopoulos started speaking positively about pedophilia that he actually faced any tangible repercussions.

Of course, individuals’ right to free speech can be restricted without being “thrown in jail.” Coulter’s planned speech at the publicly-funded University of California, Berkeley was cancelled because activists threatened to disrupt the event. The left-wing ACLU criticized the institution for this move, and outlined that “the heckler’s veto of Coulter’s Berkeley speech is a loss for the 1st Amendment. We must protect speech on campus, even when hateful.”

The Huffington Post culture writer later emphasized that “contrary to popular belief, free speech, in the context of the Constitution, actually does have limits. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence, fraud, or child pornography, or certain forms of obscenity. It puts limits and restrictions on slander, and intellectual property.”

Blay also asserted that “safe spaces do not ‘suppress’ anything ― they level the playing field in a landscape where so many of those who bemoan political correctness do so at the expense of already marginalized communities.”

Near the end of her piece, the author lambasted appeals to free speech as “ultimately just a rhetorical ploy to normalize ideas that oppress others. And complaining when those who are oppressed call out these ideas, as is their right, is another petty ploy.”

Blay’s column isn’t the first time that this sort of interpretation of the First Amendment has appeared in media circles. Back in May 2015, CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who has a law degree, made an identical argument on Twitter: “hate speech is excluded from protection. don’t (sic) just say you love the constitution…read it.”

Conservatives on the social media outlet sparred with Cuomo over his assertion. The CNN anchor even got some flak from the left, as Salon took him to task for his “gaffe” about the First Amendment.

[image via screengrab]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.