Here's what it said:
On the face of it, it seems that the editorial staff would be more willing to favor the First Amendment as a protection of all speech, including so-called "hate speech," as long as the Supreme Court deems it so. That would demonstrate a promising development and a change of pace for the former newspaper.
Ironically, if The New York Times upheld that same standard of relying on Supreme Court precedent to uphold constitutional rights, then it would not have expressed the same insane views toward guns and gun control that it projects whenever a mass shooting or some firearm-related tragedy occurs in the republic. If Matal v. Tam is the new standard for trademark laws regarding offensive content, then District of Columbia v. Heller is the current standard for the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment that gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Here is what the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion in that case:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/17750/new-york-times-pulls-about-face-free-speech-elliott-hamilton
The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position.
On the face of it, it seems that the editorial staff would be more willing to favor the First Amendment as a protection of all speech, including so-called "hate speech," as long as the Supreme Court deems it so. That would demonstrate a promising development and a change of pace for the former newspaper.
Ironically, if The New York Times upheld that same standard of relying on Supreme Court precedent to uphold constitutional rights, then it would not have expressed the same insane views toward guns and gun control that it projects whenever a mass shooting or some firearm-related tragedy occurs in the republic. If Matal v. Tam is the new standard for trademark laws regarding offensive content, then District of Columbia v. Heller is the current standard for the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment that gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Here is what the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his opinion in that case:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/17750/new-york-times-pulls-about-face-free-speech-elliott-hamilton
