Dissenting Opinions
1967 Blizzard
According to many, many test cases in court, the 1st Amendment’s inclusion of freedom of speech includes various media formats such as books and videos and movies and public speech and is actually the subject under discussion here. I know that the liberal twits dislike the mere idea that We Who Are Not Their Kind have the right to speak our minds freely, but, as was clearly demonstrated in the legal cases in defense of Grove Press publishing Henry Miller’s skanky porn novel “Tropic of Cancer” (see links below), even pornography is considered free speech.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/389/grove-press-v-maryland-state-board-of-censors
https://casetext.com/case/attorney-general-v-tropic-of-cancer
Some lower courts have been designating “hate speech” as not subject to the privileges of the 1st Amendment’s free speech section.
Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”.
However, per http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate , there are restrictions on what is defined as hate speech since they are intended as instructions to do harm to others. Per ALA.org. :
Hate Speech
There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. 1
In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. – article
Therefore, Hitler addressing his juvenile admirers in one of his enthralling speeches and encouraging them to engage in Kristallnacht would be considered hate speech.
And this brings up the subject of Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senator, (D-RI), who has announced his intention to pursue the prosecution of those whose opinions about climate change don’t match what he claims are his opinions – and he will likely back that up with names and other references. Therefore, it is high time that people stop being obedient noonches and tell people like him to go pound sand. I will add the disclaimer here that I believe he is aiming at making a name for himself ahead of a run for a higher seat in government. (Please, no remarks about his last name. It could not be less obvious.) But that’s just me.
Under the 1st Amendment’s “free speech” portion, people have a right to dissenting opinions, whether Sheldon likes it or not. So Sheldon is very likely on a roll here to get noticed, probably counting on winning hands down about “climate change” and making a name for himself.
Will it work? Oh, probably, yes. People tend to hear what they want to hear and ignore reality because of it. But what happens when the self-aggrandizing, hyper-ambitious Sheldons of the world use that ignorance as a means of climbing to the top of the heap and damaging everyone in their paths along the way? Stalin slaughtered Ukrainian farmers who refused to do his bidding during the Holodomor. He also let Ukrainians starve by the millions by sending their grain to Moscow and satellite Soviet states. There was no one to stop him.
As the Supreme Court found, in 1961, “Tropic of Cancer” may have been nothing but a skanky porn novel written for cash and nothing else. It did become a best seller, but it did not violate the 1st Amendment at all. “No redeeming value” was a phrase coined to prevent the publication in this country of that novel and others like it, and it did not work. “Tropic of Cancer” was, therefore, a valid sales item and Henry Miller continued to write porn novels for money, and nonfiction as well. Frankly, I have some of his nonfiction which is far better than his fiction. But that’s just my view.
Therefore, in something like this, Sheldon may not like or agree with or accept the differing opinions of other people, including science peeps with valid work to back up their opposing views and findings, but he does not have the right to shut them down. If it is his goal to do so, he is likely to face more than just resistance to his intentions.
I see nothing but an opportunity which he will pursue to line his pockets and self-aggrandize his image into the public eye so that when the next elections roll around, he’ll be Da Man. Will we have more riots in the cities, this time over a non-existent threat that the Greenbeaners and ecohippies are insisting will end all life on this planet? It’s possible, but you’d have to ask why, when spring, summer and fall are the most pleasant times of the year, they have to act like a pack of dimwitted doorknobs.
I can only wish the best for Sheldon, and by “the best”, I mean finding his car stuck in a ditch in the middle of a blinding snowstorm, with a phone that’s gone dead, a car battery that has frozen, and snow piled up in windblown drifts up to 8 feet high. I’ve been through that myself (no the dead phones back then), and having to walk through road-closing snow drifts in the middle of a fierce blizzard is not my idea of a really, really bad time.
Category: "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Economy
“Hate speech” is any speech that Liberals don’t like or an opinion that isn’t in lockstep with theirs.
Just like Big Tech social(ist) media:
The enemies of free speech never stop at just speech, therefor all speech is legal and protected, insert Locke quote or something.
Cuomo the H**o thinks he can restrict display of the swastika and confederate flag on state lands. PUBLIC LAND!
https://nypost.com/2020/12/15/cuomo-signs-bill-banning-sale-of-confederate-flags/
Now, Fellow Citizens, is the time to tell these tyrants to F*CK right the Hell off, or else.
Remember The Big They canceled Alex Jones, and no one said anything….?
Which one of we dirty heathens are next?
Cuomo the H**o thinks he can restrict display of the swastika and confederate flag on state lands. PUBLIC LAND!
That is incorrect.
There are two parts of the bill Cuomo signed into law. The first says the State of New York itself cannot sell “symbols of hate [which] shall include, but not be limited to, symbols of white supremacy, neo-Nazi ideology or the Battle Flag of the Confederacy.”
That part of the law is perfectly legal. The State as an entity can determine what it wants to sell or not sell.
It is the second part of the law that is unConstitutional:
[The Department of Agriculture & Markets] through the commissioner shall have power to:] Take any measures necessary to prohibit the sale, on the grounds of the state fair and any other fairs that receive government funding, of symbols of hate, as defined in [Pub. Buildings L. § 146], or any similar image, or tangible personal property, inscribed with such an image, unless the image appears in a book, digital medium, or otherwise serves an educational or historical purpose.
This is classic “viewpoint discrimination and is unConstitutional.
(The bill is here: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/s8298b )
Where your post goes astray is that people can still display the Confederate flag or swastika on public grounds. There is no prohibition in the new law preventing that. You can walk around with a Confederate flag or a swastika on your person or carried by you. What the bill prevents is the sale of the Confederate flag, or swastika.
Theoretically, you could have a stall or vendor displaying a Confederate flag at a state park or fair, while selling other things (books on the Civil War, for example.) There is nothing that prevents that display.
It is the sale of the items that is the issue – not the display.
You did the leg work, brava.
Missed the distinction without a difference: Commerce is speech, and that asshat, along with my neighbors’ legislature, is off the rails.
We were writing an article for publication on this topic on our blog tomorrow, so we had the info queued up.
Commerce is speech…..
That is incorrect and you don’t want to go there.
The Commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) gives the government broad powers to regulate commerce between the states, nations, Indians, etc. Most states adopt a similar standard for within their respective states.
If the government has the power and authority to regulate commerce, it follows that they would have power and authority to regulate speech, as in this case. Neither you nor I believe that generally speaking, the State of New York has the right to limit speech such as the wearing an object.
To us, the problem outside of this bill and it’s First Amendment issues, is that the legislature and Cuomo passed a law that they knew would be against the Constitution.
The fact that they didn’t care and would “fix it later” is almost as troubling as the bill itself (which goes into effect immediately.)
It’s almost as if they were saying “we have to pass the bill to know what is in it.”
A) I said Commerce is speech, not speech is commerce.
You wasted a lot of digital ink on the rebuttal.
2) Takings clause lensed with Art 1, sec 8, c 3 demand that there be “just compensation”, ‘Justice’ John “duh, commerce is intercourse” Marshall and his inability to understand that ultimately prohibitions, restrictions and consolidation of power of and by congress, and their army, beget embargo and conflict. Congress regulating commerce of ‘strategic’ materials within sovereign states will be, and have been, abused. They very much will regulate speech at the federal level in my lifetime, more than they do already via their tech proxies.
Bottom line: those in power have forgot and dismissed the source of their power, We and Our consent of the governed.
A) I said Commerce is speech, not speech is commerce.
I realize that is what you said. It is still wrong.
The Commerce clause allows the regulation of commerce. In general, the First Amendment does not allow for the regulation of speech.
Your statement sets up the contradiction of regulating commerce (allowed) and speech (not allowed) if the two are the same as you believe.
Amendment 1 applies.
Congress shall make no law….
The -whole- of the Constitution is subject to the Bill of Rights. “Commerce” is not a special carve out.
All of it.
Thats like, your opinion, man.
So if I write an outstanding history text book on the civil war, and it has a picture of the confederate flag, it is now illegal to sell that on state property. That would nean libraries, schools, universities, pretty much any state entity that could benefit from my book would not be allowed to buy it. I think that’s called censorship and interfering with free trade.
No.
There is an exemption in the bill for saying “unless the image appears in a book, digital medium, or otherwise serves an educational or historical purpose.”
You can sell a book with the image in it under those circumstances.
So in essence, you can sell a picture of the confederate flag, but not the flag. What’s the problem we’re trying to solve with this law again? Sounds like SJW posturing, because it’s more important to look like we’re doing something than to actually do something.
“Which one of we dirty heathens are next?” Any and all hetrosexual caucasins. Dem ebil whyte debils gots to go! But FURST dem dar carvings on de side of dem dar mountains gots to go. Bof ’em. Dat ones in ‘lanta, and dat ones out der in Dakoduh. And all dem white debils on ever coat howze square twixt and tween hither and yon. Doan matters iffen deys dem Billied yankeys or dem dar Johny Rebils. And gits rids of all dem dar flat rock markers on dem cem-me-tarrys, ‘specially dat grate biggun dar in Washington City. Weeze gits shed of all dem and lookey houze menney new free howzes weeze could put dare. An whiles weeze ats it weeze can goad haid change de name of Washington City to, oh I doan no, maybe Maosville? Or Leninton? Che City?
Now back to the subject of the thread, pr0n. Used to be the Sears Roebuck Lingerie section was considered a little racy. The sure ’nuff good shots were in the Bridal Section of Jacques Penyay. And who didn’t appreciate the Nurses Whites with their garter belts and silk stockings? Now you can see more bare skin at the grocery store than you used to be able to see at a peep show. Not that I can define pr0n, but like most, I know it when I see it. And there is a difference between erotica and pr0n. I do so enjoy the Sunday Morning Gunz Girls because they do leave a bit to the imagination. Besides, hell, if I can’t touch it, kiss it, or play with it, don’t really care to see it. Bring me a Snuggle Bunny that can cook! YMMV
Jonathan Turley just opined that this New Yawk law is undoubtedly unconstitutional.
A better citation for “dissenting ideas” may be from the case of Gertz v.Welch” where the Supreme Court opined: Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. This concept is sometimes called the “marketplace of ideas” and has long roots in the First Amendment: Since this first appeal to the marketplace of ideas as a theory of free expression, it has been invoked hundreds if not thousands of times by the Supreme Court and federal judges to oppose censorship and to encourage freedom of thought and expression. The Court invoked the phrase in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005) to strike down a religious display of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, in Randall v. Sorrell (2006) to invalidate expenditure limits for candidates for political office, and in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997) to bar enforcement of the Communications Decency Act in censoring the content of material distributed on the Internet and the Web. More recently, the Court invoked the phrase several times in Matal v. Tam (2017), the decision invalidating a provision of federal trademark law that prohibited disparaging trademarks. Both Justice Samuel Alito in his majority opinion and Justice Anthony Kennedy in his concurring opinion referenced the marketplace of ideas. The Court used the phrase in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), explaining that “government statements do not normally trigger the First Amendment rules designed to protect the marketplace of ideas.” Justice Stephen Breyer also invoked the metaphor in his concurring opinion in Reed v . Town of Gilbert (2015), writing that “whenever government disfavors one kind of speech, it places that speech at a disadvantage, potentially interfering with the free marketplace of ideas and with an individual’s ability to express thoughts and ideas that can help that individual determine the kind of society in which he wishes to live, help shape that society, and help define his place within… Read more »
Thanks for posting that. I was in the process of posting something similar.
These politicians that want to define or restrict Free Speech need to consider protections under the 14th Amendment. There are hundreds of SCOTUS legal citations on that topic.
That’s a hurdle they’ll trip over, time and time again.
That’s the reason I posted this article.
The haste and speed with which these malignant people are engaging in their attempts to squash dissenters and dissenting opinion out of existence seems threatening, but when someone is on a mad gallop, it is frequently best to get out of his way.
With Whitehouse’s announced intent to go after opposing views, which he may label “hate speech”, there is a large degree of egomania going on. When you run that fast, you are very likely to trip and hurt yourself.
Maybe we should put a pair of pointy scissors in his hand.
Or run off of a cliff.
Excellent post, Ex-PH2.
Excellent.
You’re welcome.
Free speech and the First Amendment is really my passion as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.
I take on City Councils here in my county who try and make ridiculous restrictions on speech and expression. I think as of right now I am 7-1 with the one being a City Attorney saying that a “time, place and manner” restriction” is the same thing as a content and viewpoint restriction. No amount of citations will dissuade her.
As I said, I love the quote from the Matal decision as it is concise and perfect for those against being allowed to voice opposing views.
I also always go back as a bedrock of what *I* believe to the movie 1776 where the Rhode Island representative Stephen Hawkings when asked to decide whether to discuss independence says:
Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!
I have never found that quote in any historical documentation as it actually being said, but for me, they are words to live by.
I’ve read “Tropic of Cancer”… It’s No “Dinah’s Darling Doggies”
Those who are in favor of “hate” anything laws seem to adhere to Justice Stewart’s concept of “I can’t define it but know it when I see it”.
The problem is the Constitution is explicitly clear on this very topic.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Seems pretty cut and dry. Then again, this same clown can’t understand the phrase “Shall not be infringed”.
So, apparently SCOTUS now factors in “left will riot” in making decisions on Constitutional matters.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/391740.php#391740
Ponder the likely outcome. It is not “Americans quit and left wins!”
Do the folks on the left really want a world where Americans decide to play by their methods? I believe that winds up … badly.
Y’all should really think hard on this. Because it ends -badly-
Another perspective.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2020/12/17/did-chief-justice-john-roberts-really-scream-at-conservative-justices-over-the-texas-challenge-to-the-2020-elections-n296273
Read to the end for why the described “shouting” might ba disinfo
Well, the circumstantial evidence is that the D-rats have something on Roberts. There is a reason he changed his vote at the last minute on the seminal Obamacare case at the last moment.
Or, he is a power-addled dickhead?
He is too inconsistent. Maybe blackmail, but he isn’t consistently obedient to a notional Lefty puppetmaster.
Of course, if the puppetmaster were shrewd enough to allow some “freedom” …
People tend to let power ruin them.
I think he, like most vainglorious politicians, is worried about his “legacy”. The court is always known by the name of the Chief Justice during that Chief’s tenure. He wants to make sure the “Roberts Court” isn’t seen in a way he thinks is negative.
Remember when Roberts chastised Trump for suggesting there are “Obama judges”? This is Roberts’ thing. He wants the judicial branch to be seen as fair, impartial, and above the political fray. He has no problem with Sotomayor or RBG being openly partisan, but he does with the right wing of the court, that’s for sure.
I think his waffling positions and wavering opinions without any grounding in ideology or past case law point to his commitment to having a “fair” and balanced court. He’s willing to side with what he knows is wrong just so that his court doesn’t get remembered as “That far-right Roberts Court”.
His sketchy Irish adoption was potential grounds for having his kids taken away… but, now that they’re adults, he’s just a spineless coward.
I read a rumour a couple months back that mentioned something about roberts having a seat on the “Lolita Express” at one point in time.
All of this shit is the powered elite demanding that their corruption never comes to light.
The corruption in DC and other heads of governments in the US, usually blue states, is so deep that nothing will ever be known until it is time for the corruption to be taken out by force.
What with the decision by the roberts court to hide under the covers regarding the Texas court case to nullify this election because of the rampant fraud, all bets as to the future of America as a country are off…
I don’t know where or why God wants this course of action to be the way that it goes, but I do believe that he had a hand in the results of the election and it was for something quite big to happen to get rid of the rot we have allowed to come to America over the years.
After all, it is we that allowed the schools to deteriorate to nothing that even resembles an education in all of American cities, including most in Red States as they push their communistic and hate America bull shit.
We have to step back and take the big picture look to even begin to understand how God really does work in our world.
So would Herr Reichsmarshall Cuomo consider this hate speech?
https://youtu.be/vXS5RSgi9WU
Probably not.
But what about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPXHRX8Q2hs
“We’re marching to a faster pace! Look out, here comes the Master Race”
(dunno if its the bourbon or that clip is way better than I remember)
I am hate speech… deal with it you capitalist swine!
Begrudgingly, I must agree.
Still would something, something to the someplace for your right to burp it up, along with the ‘bathhouse snack’ that precedes it.
If you sit back and look at it, you really do realize just how things work in the world and how God plays a part in all of it.
After all, we obviously have a vested interest in how this world develops and how our lives can influence things that have long tails and can lead to a better understanding and better opportunities for people that you may just meet perchance.
My loving Grandmother Fay told me on her death bed that she was firmly convinced that life on Earth and in this universe is actually Purgatory and that we are all given the chance to make ourselves right at least once and probably more times than that.
She told me that we have no recollection of past experiences, but she was firmly convinced that we live in that area of Catholic belief.
I’m not asking that anyone believe me or anything close, I’m simply saying that I believe her and it has served me well as I trudge the road of happy destiny !!!
She also said that we need to laugh more, life is not that bad, no matter what situation you are in, it could be a lot worse.
Smart woman, she certainly was !!!