Prince Harry takes heat for calling First Amendment ‘bonkers’

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Prince Harry is taking heat for calling the First Amendment “bonkers” in a recent podcast interview.

The Duke of Sussex made the statement on Dax Shepard’s “Armchair Expert” podcast while discussing what he called the media “feeding frenzy” that arose from his stay at Tyler Perry’s Beverly Hills mansion, the Daily Mail reported.

“I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers,” Harry said, according to the report.

“I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time.





 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I believe he used "Bonkers" as being enthusiastic about The First Amendment.
Well, no. In context, he's railing about the press and them writing all these stories about him that he doesn't like. So he's clearly saying that the 1A isn't a good thing.

So he's firmly indoctrinated to progbot ideology. He wants free speech so he can criticize his family and anyone else he doesn't like, and so his wife can say shitty things about our President, but he doesn't like anyone else having free speech because they might say something that offends him.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Harry, Meghan ripped over deal with company selling skin-whitening cream
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are facing criticism for their new partnership with a company that sells skin-whitening creams — with some questioning how the deal squares with their anti-racism advocacy, according to reports.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced last week that they joined forces with Procter & Gamble, which sells a controversial Olay skin-lightening cream, the Mirror reported.
Harry, Meghan ripped for Olay deal over skin-lightening cream (pagesix.com)

:roflmao:
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
I believe he used "Bonkers" as being enthusiastic about The First Amendment.
I see Vrai addressed it. One part of being a "royal" he probably misses is that the press more or less was censored by Buckingham Palace.
Of course Uncle Joe and Father Barrack claimed the Constitution is flawed and Uncle Joe says, no right is absolute.

Which is interesting since both are lawyers. But I guess they missed civics, history, you know, the parts that explain the who, what, when and why.

The founders happened to decide that the general clause in the constitution that gave all "other" rights to the people and the states, wasn't clear enough for some subjects. So they went ahead an wrote the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. I'm pretty sure when they did that, those rights are absolute. I didn't have to go to law school to figure that out either.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Jonathan Turley: Prince Harry and 'bonkers' First Amendment – take this threat to free speech seriously


It was a surprise for many to hear Harry lash out at the First Amendment. After all, Harry and Meghan are so woke, they are virtual insomniacs. However, that is the point. The First Amendment no longer holds the inviolate position it once did with the left.

Indeed, the First Amendment is now more often treated as a danger than a guarantee to a fair and just society. Experts have explained how to evade its limitations to silence others. They have found precisely what Harry discussed in the interview when he noted "you can find a loophole in anything."

Democratic leaders now openly call for corporate censorship and the banning of books and authors. Academics join in the canceling of colleagues who express dissenting views of subjects ranging from climate change to gender identification to racial justice. Thus, it is not as risky for the Harry to declare "I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers." Rather, millions are likely to wait in rapt anticipation to hear more of what Prince Harry will say about correcting our Constitution.

What is missing in the coverage of this controversy is a far more serious context to Harry offering his "armchair expertise."
 

black dog

Free America
I see Vrai addressed it. One part of being a "royal" he probably misses is that the press more or less was censored by Buckingham Palace.
Of course Uncle Joe and Father Barrack claimed the Constitution is flawed and Uncle Joe says, no right is absolute.

Which is interesting since both are lawyers. But I guess they missed civics, history, you know, the parts that explain the who, what, when and why.

The founders happened to decide that the general clause in the constitution that gave all "other" rights to the people and the states, wasn't clear enough for some subjects. So they went ahead an wrote the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. I'm pretty sure when they did that, those rights are absolute. I didn't have to go to law school to figure that out either.
When phreddyp agrees with you, you might want to rethink abit. :killingme
 
Top