The left hates the 1st Amendment too, the 2nd is a close 2nd........

[2aguy]

Howard Dean, former head of the racist party, the democrat party, states that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect all speech....only speech he agrees with...

Former DNC Head Howard Dean: ‘Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech’

e Democrats have now spent two generations explaining that the true threat to free speech resides on the religious right, those fascistic John-Lithgow-from-Footloose types who just can’t wait to smash their Bibles in the faces of those who only want to read their lesbian pornography magazines.

In reality, there’s only one side of the American political debate fully committed to destroying the First Amendment: the Left.

On Thursday, former head of the Democratic National Committee and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean tweeted this:

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

-------

This is ignorance of the highest order.

Of course “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment. There are only a few categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment: so-called fighting words, specific and deliberate calls to violence, child pornography, defamation. But there is no category of “hate speech” here, for a simple reason: what you deem hate speech may be political speech you just don’t like. In Canada, for example, the law has forced commentators like Mark Steyn into court for criticizing Islam. This is a violation of freedom, and the First Amendment doesn’t contemplate it.

 

[Pogo]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

 

[Pogo]

Howard Dean, former head of the racist party, the democrat party, states that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect all speech....only speech he agrees with...

Former DNC Head Howard Dean: ‘Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech’

e Democrats have now spent two generations explaining that the true threat to free speech resides on the religious right, those fascistic John-Lithgow-from-Footloose types who just can’t wait to smash their Bibles in the faces of those who only want to read their lesbian pornography magazines.

In reality, there’s only one side of the American political debate fully committed to destroying the First Amendment: the Left.

On Thursday, former head of the Democratic National Committee and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean tweeted this:

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

-------

This is ignorance of the highest order.

Of course “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment. There are only a few categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment: so-called fighting words, specific and deliberate calls to violence, child pornography, defamation. But there is no category of “hate speech” here, for a simple reason: what you deem hate speech may be political speech you just don’t like. In Canada, for example, the law has forced commentators like Mark Steyn into court for criticizing Islam. This is a violation of freedom, and the First Amendment doesn’t contemplate it.

By the way, you haven't explained how the individual person "Howard Dean" becomes the collective "the left". Better get busy.

 

[miketx]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

Strange how he just cuts part of the argument out. I wonder why that is? LOL!

 

[2aguy]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

It's a private venue.......rented by him.

 

[Dale Smith]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

Protesting is one thing, the "bulldogging" that was discovered by Project Veritas and Wikileaks to disrupt a political rally is another. When people peacefully protest against a SJW rally, these commies get butthurt and start attacking. Shit is gonna get real and soon and some snowflakes are gonna find that out the hard way. Leftards believe that hate speech is any speech that they don't like. The left has gone full blown communist and they don't even hide it anymore.

 

[Pogo]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

It's a private venue.......rented by him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and?

Perhaps I missed the full text --

"Congrefs shall make no Law refpecting an eftablishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercife thereof; or abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Prefs, unlefs it's, like, y'know, insfde a Building rented by a Megalomaniac who piffes his Pants at any Hint that he might not be the flaming orange God he thinks he is, in which cafe all Bets are off and he can tell his Minions to beat the Crap out of him and free Speech can fuck off".
​

Ah, there it is. I just had to read the whole little-known original document.

 

[Pogo]

Howard Dean, former head of the racist party, the democrat party, states that the 1st Amendment doesn't protect all speech....only speech he agrees with...

Former DNC Head Howard Dean: ‘Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech’

e Democrats have now spent two generations explaining that the true threat to free speech resides on the religious right, those fascistic John-Lithgow-from-Footloose types who just can’t wait to smash their Bibles in the faces of those who only want to read their lesbian pornography magazines.

In reality, there’s only one side of the American political debate fully committed to destroying the First Amendment: the Left.

On Thursday, former head of the Democratic National Committee and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean tweeted this:

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

-------

This is ignorance of the highest order.

Of course “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment. There are only a few categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment: so-called fighting words, specific and deliberate calls to violence, child pornography, defamation. But there is no category of “hate speech” here, for a simple reason: what you deem hate speech may be political speech you just don’t like. In Canada, for example, the law has forced commentators like Mark Steyn into court for criticizing Islam. This is a violation of freedom, and the First Amendment doesn’t contemplate it.

By the way, you haven't explained how the individual person "Howard Dean" becomes the collective "the left". Better get busy.

Still waiting on this one too. We sit, and we wait.

 

[Dale Smith]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

It's a private venue.......rented by him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and?

Perhaps I missed the full text --

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless it's, like, y'know, inside a building rented by a megalomaniac who pisses his pants at any hint that he might not be the flaming orange god he thinks he is".
​

Ah, there it is. I just had to read the whole document.

I saw nothing there that allows the use of force and intimidation in order to use your right to free speech....now is there?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Party politics and partisanshit is serving this society so well, I say we stick with it.

 

[Pogo]

Amazing how many people still don't get the concept two centuries later. Here's a related story:

>> President Donald Rump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights. <<​

Yeah that's a real thing. They actually argued that.

>> Rump’s lawyers also argue that he had every right to call for the removal the protesters since they “obviously interfered with the Rump campaign’s First Amendment right” by “vigorously expressing their disdain for Mr. Rump,” including by chanting and holding up signs depicting Rump’s face on the body of a pig, among other anti-Rump messages.

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Rump’s lawyers wrote. <<

​

Say what?

Poor li'l Rumpflake. Now he's using lawyers to throw tantrums for him.

It's a private venue.......rented by him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and?

Perhaps I missed the full text --

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless it's, like, y'know, inside a building rented by a megalomaniac who pisses his pants at any hint that he might not be the flaming orange god he thinks he is".
​

Ah, there it is. I just had to read the whole document.

I saw nothing there that allows the use of force and intimidation in order to use your right to free speech....now is there?

Yeah I edited that in there.