Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Returning to the theme of my original post, Free Speech is under assault on many fronts.
I first made the point that "counter-demonstrations" against people who are regarded as engaging in unacceptable "hate speech" are assaulting First Amendment provisions for Free Speech when the counter-demonstrators engage in violence or intimidation with the specific intent of silencing the speech they oppose.
Then in a later post I gave several examples of the assault on Free Speech on college campuses, where violence, rioting, and burning were the weapons of those opposing Conservative Speakers scheduled to give talks on campus.
Now, let's talk about people who are asserting that the First Amendment does not protect "hate speech." Most notable among this group is former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and former Governor of Vermont Howard Dean, who has made this claim. Other public officials, like the Mayor of Portland, Oregon, have made the same claim.
However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invalidated laws which were intended to bridle "hate speech." One such law was Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities. (Brandenburg vs Ohio) Brandenburg was a KKK leader speaking at a KKK rally.
Another law prohibited "display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." It was used against a man who burned a cross on someone's lawn. (R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul) In a 9-0 unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed.
One last example of attempts to pass laws restricting Free Speech. When members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of a Marine while displaying offensive signs, such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," the family of the Marine sued them. (Snyder vs Phelps) The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability.
Now, I don't endorse any of the offensive acts described in these cases. But, I do believe most sincerely that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects offensive speech.
Carl in Tampa
.
|
Can't disagree...won't disagree.....never disagreed.
Having said that, we are not prevented from condemning a basic movement with every breath, a movement that is totally un American and morally corrupt.
When I read what is said on here, along with statements made by our President, I am allowed to be greatly alarmed that posts on here, and words from the WH are reluctant to condemn a movement based on Nazi's, but are quick to turn on United States citizens who perform tirelessly in our country...FBI, intelligence agencies, and even an ex President or war hero, and do it with no basis.
Yes, the right is there, I keep looking for the moral compass. It appears to be the season for attacking our own and our media without any merit. Having the white house whip up hate for the free press which IS honest, and has never been shown to be otherwise, attacking the people whether he likes them or not, who can help actually make legalative action possible.
But, I am the dumb one. I still think we should have new health care legislation and would have had the "leader" actually worked. He was attacking the bill, those who were working on it and spoke publicly of its "meanness"
Yes, free speech should be protected, but there seems to be more attention being paid to protecting a hate filled Nazi movement than our media, legislators, and hard working citizens if our country.