by Charles C. W. Cooke August 16, 2017 4:42 PM @charlescwcooke
Piers Morgan is at it again:
Piers Morgan
✔
@piersmorgan
I understand the purpose very well. I don't think it should be used to protect Nazis.
https://twitter.com/politicalelle/status/897878162666692609 …
1:00 PM - Aug 16, 2017
190 190 Replies
17 17 Retweets
146
Piers Morgan
✔
@piersmorgan
What these Nazis did in Charlottesville is not free speech. If America doesn't wake up to this fact fast, it is in deep trouble.
https://twitter.com/seriousdemeanor/status/897863917174755330 …
11:55 AM - Aug 16, 2017
Morgan is echoing an idea that has been advanced repeatedly in the last couple of days: To wit, that there is something particular about Nazism that makes it ineligible for protection under the Bill of Rights. This is flat-out wrong. And, more than that, it’s dangerous. Abhorrent and ugly as they invariably are, there simply is no exception to the First Amendment that exempts Nazis, white supremacists, KKK members, Soviet apologists, or anyone else who harbors disgraceful or illiberal views. As the courts have made abundantly clear, the rules are the same for ghastly little plonkers such as Richard Spencer as they are for William Shakespeare. If that weren’t true, the First Amendment would be pointless.
This is not a “controversial” statement. It is not an “interesting view.” It is not a contrarian contribution to an intractable “grey area.” It is a fact. There are a handful of limits to free speech in the United States, and all of them are exceptions of form rather than of viewpoint. Here’s Eugene Volokh to explain that further:
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450541/piers-morgan-vs-first-amendment-again