Archive that shit. Don't drive traffic to the Washington Post.
Not only do they make money from our clicks, they are trying to grab all kinds of info from your browser as well. God knows what they do with all of this information but I don't trust them with anything.
The only thing that isn't protected is speech that is likely to cause imminent illegal activity. Causing a riot, for example. Gee, if only we could see some examples of people doing that for comparison!
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
The theory of hate speech is that speech leads to violence and oppression. Therefore, the person who said something “offensive” is just as guilty as a person who committed a physical act of violence. Even if no actual violence occurred, the person who used “hate speech” is still guilty.
The problem with this theory, is that we live in free and adult society. We will live a society where people are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what someone else said.
If you want to live in a society that has regard for hate speech then you are advocating for a society where liberty is abdicated along with personal responsibility, to some sort of social and political authority.
Adults are reduced to children who have to be educated and cared for, and disciplined.
This is not a liberal ideology, it is a SOCIALIST ideology.
It really doesn't matter what they say, you will still be arrested for hate speech, because muh hate crime.
Then you have to spend YOUR money to get a lawyer to argue that it's unconstitutional. All the while you've either been in jail or had to pay bail out of your pocket.
This is a Reminder to People of this Ruling in 2017.
Archive that shit. Don't drive traffic to the Washington Post.
Not only do they make money from our clicks, they are trying to grab all kinds of info from your browser as well. God knows what they do with all of this information but I don't trust them with anything.
I dunno man, I can say 2+2=4 and it causes fear, panic, hysteria to commmies
Screaming fire in a theater is still protected.
The only thing that isn't protected is speech that is likely to cause imminent illegal activity. Causing a riot, for example. Gee, if only we could see some examples of people doing that for comparison!
Article from 2017 but I always enjoy anything written by Eugene Volokh. Very smart dude!
It is true, hatred like any other feeling, is not illegal. Even when verbalized. Imagine the tendies dropping.
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
🇺🇸
Direct actionable incitement to violence. That is the only restriction and it is extremely narrow.
It's clear. Federal funding can be withheld from universities that ban conservative speech. So do it!
The site requires a subscription in order to read the article.
Here you go.
https://archive.is/uMnDh
Thank you.
The left generates hate speech. Ban the DNC.
Really, because then why are there still "hate crimes" laws being enforced in nearly every state in the country?
It isn’t about being offended.
The theory of hate speech is that speech leads to violence and oppression. Therefore, the person who said something “offensive” is just as guilty as a person who committed a physical act of violence. Even if no actual violence occurred, the person who used “hate speech” is still guilty.
The problem with this theory, is that we live in free and adult society. We will live a society where people are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what someone else said.
If you want to live in a society that has regard for hate speech then you are advocating for a society where liberty is abdicated along with personal responsibility, to some sort of social and political authority.
Adults are reduced to children who have to be educated and cared for, and disciplined.
This is not a liberal ideology, it is a SOCIALIST ideology.
It really doesn't matter what they say, you will still be arrested for hate speech, because muh hate crime.
Then you have to spend YOUR money to get a lawyer to argue that it's unconstitutional. All the while you've either been in jail or had to pay bail out of your pocket.