Dean Says AGAIN That Coulter Isn’t Protected By First Amendment

[GURPS]

WATCH: Former DNC Head Dean Says AGAIN That Coulter Isn’t Protected By First Amendment. He’s Wrong, Of Course.


Appearing on MSNBC on Sunday, former DNC head Howard Dean doubled down on his claim that Ann Coulter’s speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Last week, Dean responded on Twitter to a quote from Coulter many years ago regarding Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh.Dean tweeted, “Hate speech is not protedted by the First Amendment.”

[clip]

Even left-wing Politifact took issue with Dean’s claim, bluntly calling it “false.” Politifact noted:

There are some exceptions to the free speech clause in the First Amendment, but "hate speech" is not one of them. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held up the right of an individual or group to engage in speech that much of the public likely finds offensive, like displaying swastikas, burning crosses or protesting a soldier’s funeral.​

Politifact also quoted James Weinstein, from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School, asserting, “It would be unconstitutional to ban someone from putting a racial epithet on a sign at a protest. But if someone used the same racial epithet while credibly saying they plan to harm someone of that race, that might count as a threat and therefore lose its First Amendment protection. But the speech loses the protection because it’s a threat, not because it’s hate speech.”


............................................................................................


Ah Yes, Any Speech Progressives Don't Like - It IS Hate Speech

Bernie Sanders RIPS Millennials Trying To Shut Up Ann Coulter


Speaking about the current fallout following an invitation to conservative commentator and New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter to speak at the University of California, Berkeley, Sanders said he was displeased with the college students' reaction.

"I don’t like this. I don’t like it," said Sanders.

"Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation," the Vermont socialist added.

The 2016 presidential candidate shamed the millennials trying to shut up Coulter further, explaining that this was "a sign of intellectual weakness."

"To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness," he stated. "If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?"

Sanders Challenging SnowFlakes to Critical Thinking

I like it, but its like teaching a pig to sing

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15655/why-howard-deans-hate-speech-tweet-terrifying-frank-camp


On Friday, comedian Bill Maher offered a rebuttal, saying:

"I feel like this is the liberals' version of book burning, and it's got to stop. Howard Dean tweeted ... about this: 'Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.' Yes it is! Threats are not protected by the First Amendment.

This is why the Supreme Court said the Nazis could march in Skokie. They're a hateful bunch – but that's what the First Amendment means. It doesn't mean just shut up, and agree with me."​

Bill Maher is correct – but Howard Dean is simply playing a small part in the larger progressive agenda. The progressive movement is pushing to have "hate speech" placed under the same umbrella as threats of harm.

 

[Merlin99]

WATCH: Former DNC Head Dean Says AGAIN That Coulter Isn’t Protected By First Amendment. He’s Wrong, Of Course.


Appearing on MSNBC on Sunday, former DNC head Howard Dean doubled down on his claim that Ann Coulter’s speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Last week, Dean responded on Twitter to a quote from Coulter many years ago regarding Oklahoma City Bomber Timothy McVeigh.Dean tweeted, “Hate speech is not protedted by the First Amendment.”

[clip]

Even left-wing Politifact took issue with Dean’s claim, bluntly calling it “false.” Politifact noted:

There are some exceptions to the free speech clause in the First Amendment, but "hate speech" is not one of them. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held up the right of an individual or group to engage in speech that much of the public likely finds offensive, like displaying swastikas, burning crosses or protesting a soldier’s funeral.​

Politifact also quoted James Weinstein, from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School, asserting, “It would be unconstitutional to ban someone from putting a racial epithet on a sign at a protest. But if someone used the same racial epithet while credibly saying they plan to harm someone of that race, that might count as a threat and therefore lose its First Amendment protection. But the speech loses the protection because it’s a threat, not because it’s hate speech.”


............................................................................................


Ah Yes, Any Speech Progressives Don't Like - It IS Hate Speech







Sanders Challenging SnowFlakes to Critical Thinking

I like it, but its like teaching a pig to sing

But he really reallllly wants it to be.

 

[PsyOps]

These liberals are right in our faces, unashamed admitting they want to shut down speech they disagree with. But they can't say that, so they call it "hate speech". These are the most constitutional-hating people that exist.

 

[Hijinx]

These liberals are right in our faces, unashamed admitting they want to shut down speech they disagree with. But they can't say that, so they call it "hate speech". These are the most constitutional-hating people that exist.

Howard Dean has been around for a while, and in that time I don't believe he has EVER been right.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the concept of free speech to have ANY meaning, at all, it MUST include speech that is going to offend. Otherwise, it's a pointless concept.

I invite you to spend the 20 minutes to avail yourself of the best possible understanding and explanation of who we are and what we believe and why.

[video=youtube;4Z2uzEM0ugY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=241s[/video]

 

[Lurk]

The characterization as "Hate Speech" is so over used it's impotent just like "Racist", "Denier", and the other SJW-liberal-progressive-socialist-Democrat terms.

 

[GURPS]

Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall. The victory of Fascism in a number of countries is only an episode in the long series of struggles over the problem of property. The next episode will be the victory of Communism. The ultimate outcome of the struggle, however, will not be decided by arms, but by ideas. It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used. It is they alone, and not arms, that, in the last analysis, turn the scales.
So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.
Ch. 1 : The Foundations of Liberal Policy § 10 : The Argument of Fascism


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises