Howard Dean: No, really, the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech

[rangerrebew]

Howard Dean: No, really, the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech
posted at 11:21 am on April 24, 2017 by Allahpundit


I grudgingly admire this dude’s willingness to go all-in on his position after having been scolded last week by half the lawyers on the Internet. If you’re out to censor your political opponents on “hate speech” grounds, you can’t let some clucking by First Amendment experts frighten you.

He mentions three cases that supposedly make Ann Coulter’s right to speak at Berkeley a “close call” which ultimately can be infringed on “safety” grounds or whatever. One is the Chaplinsky decision from 1942, in which the Supreme Court held that “fighting words” can be banned because they’re likely to lead to violence. The second is the Snyder v. Phelps decision from a few years ago, when an 8-1 Court upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket a fallen soldier’s funeral. The third is the 2002 decision in Virginia v. Black, when the Court ruled that certain types of cross-burnings can be prohibited by the state. Here’s what happened in that case:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/24/howard-dean-no-really-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-hate-speech/

[XenaLee]

Howard Dean: No, really, the First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech
posted at 11:21 am on April 24, 2017 by Allahpundit


I grudgingly admire this dude’s willingness to go all-in on his position after having been scolded last week by half the lawyers on the Internet. If you’re out to censor your political opponents on “hate speech” grounds, you can’t let some clucking by First Amendment experts frighten you.

He mentions three cases that supposedly make Ann Coulter’s right to speak at Berkeley a “close call” which ultimately can be infringed on “safety” grounds or whatever. One is the Chaplinsky decision from 1942, in which the Supreme Court held that “fighting words” can be banned because they’re likely to lead to violence. The second is the Snyder v. Phelps decision from a few years ago, when an 8-1 Court upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket a fallen soldier’s funeral. The third is the 2002 decision in Virginia v. Black, when the Court ruled that certain types of cross-burnings can be prohibited by the state. Here’s what happened in that case:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/24/howard-dean-no-really-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-hate-speech/

Doesn't the second kind of contradict the first and the third?   

[Free Vulcan]

The problem with hate speech is that what is it? Who determines it? Of course the liberals think they should and do.

Then at what point are you nothing but a holy robed religious tribunal theocratically dictating the morality of a country, in violation of Separation of Church and State?

[EasyAce]

Howard who?

[Sanguine]

Howard who?

Howard Yehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, right?

[musiclady]

Howard Yehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, right?

Certainly a blast from the past that I always take seriously.....   ^-^

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Just another reminder that bleep liberals want to turn us into Europe, where criticizing a certain religion can get you thrown in jail.

[Fishrrman]

Weird wrote:
"Just another reminder that bleep liberals want to turn us into Europe, where criticizing a certain religion can get you thrown in jail."

Wait 40 more years.
Things are going to change.

Getting "thrown in jail" is a heck of a lot better than getting your head chopped off.