Consider a debate on free speech where the winner actually gets power over the other … at the end of the debate, you want the winner to be the one who allows further debate.
Greg, you really have done the world a huge favor with this clear and succinct article explaining the constitutional right to free speech. I think we should frame it!! The language manipulation that is going on these days by the woke, e.g. the concept of “hate speech” and the terrible fear of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is a nothing less than a calculated and subtle way to do end run around the First Amendment. The protections of the bill of rights is ESSENTIAL to a free, democratic, and evolving society. Evading them is pushing (consciously or unconsciously) toward a different kind of society. We need to keep calling out this manipulation and fuzzy thinking regarding the constitution, as you have so brilliantly done in this article.
Time, place, and manner. Take a poster into a theater that says "The Theater Is On Fire" and hold it up. Odds are the worst you will get are dirty, weird looks. The theater might politely ask you to leave (invoking their right of private property). If--if--law enforcement gets involved, it's going to be to trespass you.
And I guarantee that the same thing will happen if you go to a Regal and hold up a sign that says "AMC Sucks".
It's easy to want to agree that "hate speech" or "misinformation" should be prohibited. After all, that stuff sounds bad. But in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a unanimous SCOTUS emphasized some gems that are well worth polishing. Courts cannot "give any" actual "weight to" any mere "epithet" or "mere labels" (including "hate speech" or "misinformation"). None of the usual (or even the novel) "formulae for the repression of expression" can claim any "talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations." All punishment of expression "must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." "The constitutional protection does not" (necessarily) "turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.’" In other words, all speech and speakers must be judged according to due process of law, not labels.
So how exactly have these right wingers are actually being hurt over this? There seem to be any number of right wingers who’ve had no trouble being hurt any any of this. It’s true that Democrats don’t like arguing with Republicans but I don’t see where right wingers are especially friendly when it comes to reaching out to Democrats. Meanwhile where I live in a Red State in a place with a 2-1 Republican state. Virtually no Democrats I know publicly admits there a Democrat frankly because we’re afraid of the threatened of violence.
Fascinating you would single out this remark in the debate when you have a guy at the other podium who literally, via his choice to run side saddle to Trump, supports revoking the licenses of news platforms that criticize him. I guess Paul Simon was absolutely right, "A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
He and Trump for that matter fail my first test for my vote; are you smarter than me? Research his consistently shown the best predictor of performance in almost any job is intelligence.
It's frustrating how widespread misunderstandings of the first amendment are. Parts of the left and Europeans who think we have hate speech exemptions, parts of the right who think platforms like Twitter banning people violates 1A. It's a mess.
Consider a debate on free speech where the winner actually gets power over the other … at the end of the debate, you want the winner to be the one who allows further debate.
Keep it comin, FIRE
You inspired this meme: I can’t post a picture here, but please consider:
https://substack.com/@lexingtonrexicus/note/c-71167563?r=1dorjw&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
More power to tiu!
Greg, you really have done the world a huge favor with this clear and succinct article explaining the constitutional right to free speech. I think we should frame it!! The language manipulation that is going on these days by the woke, e.g. the concept of “hate speech” and the terrible fear of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is a nothing less than a calculated and subtle way to do end run around the First Amendment. The protections of the bill of rights is ESSENTIAL to a free, democratic, and evolving society. Evading them is pushing (consciously or unconsciously) toward a different kind of society. We need to keep calling out this manipulation and fuzzy thinking regarding the constitution, as you have so brilliantly done in this article.
Time, place, and manner. Take a poster into a theater that says "The Theater Is On Fire" and hold it up. Odds are the worst you will get are dirty, weird looks. The theater might politely ask you to leave (invoking their right of private property). If--if--law enforcement gets involved, it's going to be to trespass you.
And I guarantee that the same thing will happen if you go to a Regal and hold up a sign that says "AMC Sucks".
It's easy to want to agree that "hate speech" or "misinformation" should be prohibited. After all, that stuff sounds bad. But in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a unanimous SCOTUS emphasized some gems that are well worth polishing. Courts cannot "give any" actual "weight to" any mere "epithet" or "mere labels" (including "hate speech" or "misinformation"). None of the usual (or even the novel) "formulae for the repression of expression" can claim any "talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations." All punishment of expression "must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." "The constitutional protection does not" (necessarily) "turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.’" In other words, all speech and speakers must be judged according to due process of law, not labels.
Free speech until you disagree
https://substack.com/@libertarianthinker/note/c-68969748?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=3wo7hv
So how exactly have these right wingers are actually being hurt over this? There seem to be any number of right wingers who’ve had no trouble being hurt any any of this. It’s true that Democrats don’t like arguing with Republicans but I don’t see where right wingers are especially friendly when it comes to reaching out to Democrats. Meanwhile where I live in a Red State in a place with a 2-1 Republican state. Virtually no Democrats I know publicly admits there a Democrat frankly because we’re afraid of the threatened of violence.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/
Fascinating you would single out this remark in the debate when you have a guy at the other podium who literally, via his choice to run side saddle to Trump, supports revoking the licenses of news platforms that criticize him. I guess Paul Simon was absolutely right, "A man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
He and Trump for that matter fail my first test for my vote; are you smarter than me? Research his consistently shown the best predictor of performance in almost any job is intelligence.
It won’t matter if he gets to be in charge.
It's frustrating how widespread misunderstandings of the first amendment are. Parts of the left and Europeans who think we have hate speech exemptions, parts of the right who think platforms like Twitter banning people violates 1A. It's a mess.