Freedom For Speech: Especially The Speech You Hate...

[Dschrute3]

Great article by 'The Judge' Andrew Napolitano

Last weekend, serious violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, when a group of white supremacist demonstrators was confronted by a group of folks who were there to condemn the message the demonstrators had come to advance. The message was critical of the government for removing a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public place.

For some, Lee is associated with the military defense of slavery. For others, he is associated with the military defense of the right of states to leave the union — a union they voluntarily joined. For the organizers of the Charlottesville rally, the removal of the statue provided a platform to articulate crudely their view that the Caucasian race is somehow morally superior to every other.

Such a political and philosophical position is hardly rational to anyone who respects the dignity of all people and their moral equality before God and legal equality in America. Believing that one race is morally superior to others is largely a hate-filled theory, supportable only by bias, prejudice, fear and resentment — ...

Read More:
Freedom for Speech - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Great article by 'The Judge' Andrew Napolitano

Last weekend, serious violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, when a group of white supremacist demonstrators was confronted by a group of folks who were there to condemn the message the demonstrators had come to advance. The message was critical of the government for removing a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public place.

For some, Lee is associated with the military defense of slavery. For others, he is associated with the military defense of the right of states to leave the union — a union they voluntarily joined. For the organizers of the Charlottesville rally, the removal of the statue provided a platform to articulate crudely their view that the Caucasian race is somehow morally superior to every other.

Such a political and philosophical position is hardly rational to anyone who respects the dignity of all people and their moral equality before God and legal equality in America. Believing that one race is morally superior to others is largely a hate-filled theory, supportable only by bias, prejudice, fear and resentment — ...

Read More:
Freedom for Speech - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Preach, Judge.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects “the freedom of speech” from infringement by the government, has a long and storied history. The drafters of the amendment referred to it as “the” freedom of speech in order to underscore its pre-political existence. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is a natural right, one that derives from our humanity, and hence it pre-existed the government that was prohibited from infringing upon it. The government doesn’t grant free speech, but it is supposed to protect it."

Amen. Preach it, Bro. Nepalitano.

 

[Dschrute3]

"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects “the freedom of speech” from infringement by the government, has a long and storied history. The drafters of the amendment referred to it as “the” freedom of speech in order to underscore its pre-political existence. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is a natural right, one that derives from our humanity, and hence it pre-existed the government that was prohibited from infringing upon it. The government doesn’t grant free speech, but it is supposed to protect it."

Amen. Preach it, Bro. Nepalitano.

Right on. Freedom and Liberty isn't a 'favor' granted to us by the Government. We're all born with the right to our Freedom & Liberty. We don't have to beg the Government to allow it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We don't have to beg the Government to allow it.

It's amazing how our government has manipulated us into believing that we have to get permission to exercise our natural rights. We need a classic liberal revival and Renaissance in America.

 

[Dschrute3]

We don't have to beg the Government to allow it.

It's amazing how our government has manipulated us into believing that we have to get permission to exercise our natural rights. We need a classic liberal revival and Renaissance in America.

Yes, too many now believe the Government is doing us a 'favor' by allowing us our Freedom & Liberty. Too many Big Government folks out there. They seem to control our Two-Party System at this point. I've become so disillusioned with folks, especially many Republicans, who claim to support 'Small/Less Government.' It turns out that's just a matter of convenience for most who make that claim.

Right now, the Neocons and Communists/Progressives are running the show. And they're only all about Big Government. It's a real mess. We desperately need more choices. We need more political parties. The Two-Party System can only offer the same ole same ole. Nothing can change until we get real choices.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘When the police decline to maintain order — as was their decision in Charlottesville — they permit the “heckler’s veto,” whereby the audience silences the speech it hates. And when the heckler’s veto comes about through government failure as it did in Charlottesville, it is unconstitutional. It is the functional equivalent of the government’s taking sides and censoring the speech it hates or fears.’ ibid

This is a lie.

Local law enforcement made no such decision.

This also fails as a false comparison fallacy: the actions of private citizens are not the same as the actions of government.

The First Amendment applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations.

The notion that the ‘heckler’s veto’ is de facto government censorship is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

In fact, local authorities sought to relocate the demonstration to a more appropriate venue perfectly consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence: the relocation was content neutral and afforded the demonstrators ample alternate channels of communication, while affording law enforce the ability to protect public safety.

No one sought to ‘silence’ the hate speech of rightwing demonstrators in Charlottesville – not the local government, and not the counter-demonstrators; nor do either seek to ‘silence’ the hate speech of rightwing demonstrators in the future.

 

[Dschrute3]

‘When the police decline to maintain order — as was their decision in Charlottesville — they permit the “heckler’s veto,” whereby the audience silences the speech it hates. And when the heckler’s veto comes about through government failure as it did in Charlottesville, it is unconstitutional. It is the functional equivalent of the government’s taking sides and censoring the speech it hates or fears.’ ibid

This is a lie.

Local law enforcement made no such decision.

This also fails as a false comparison fallacy: the actions of private citizens are not the same as the actions of government.

The First Amendment applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations.

The notion that the ‘heckler’s veto’ is de facto government censorship is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

In fact, local authorities sought to relocate the demonstration to a more appropriate venue perfectly consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence: the relocation was content neutral and afforded the demonstrators ample alternate channels of communication, while affording law enforce the ability to protect public safety.

No one sought to ‘silence’ the hate speech of rightwing demonstrators in Charlottesville – not the local government, and not the counter-demonstrators; nor do either seek to ‘silence’ the hate speech of rightwing demonstrators in the future.

Well, some reports are claiming otherwise. Some are claiming Police were ordered to stand down.