Finally, The Admission!

[PoliticalChic]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





If the Democrats ever gain control of the Supreme Court, that will be the end of free speech, and free thought.

They have put you on notice.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I dunno PC. We've got some real einsteins coming up. Not sure they even know what speech or writing is. Gittin' our dumb on:

Reading Scores on National Exam Decline in Half the States

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dunno PC. We've got some real einsteins coming up. Not sure they even know what speech or writing is. Gittin' our dumb on:

Reading Scores on National Exam Decline in Half the States

Yup .....and it was explained in this OP the other day....



Who controls government school?????

Yup.....Progressives....Liberals....Democrats.

And now for the results of indoctrination rather than education:


1. "Across the Board, Scores Drop in Math and Reading for U.S. Students
The latest results from the Nation’s Report Card show declines in student performance across demographics.

2. MATH AND READING SCORES for fourth- and eighth-graders in the United States dropped since 2017, and the decrease in reading achievement has government researchers particularly concerned.

3. "Over the past decade, there has been no progress in either mathematics or reading performance, and the lowest performing students are doing worse," Peggy Carr, associate commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, said during a press call Tuesday.



4. ...declines in reading at both grades were also seen at all levels of achievement, whether students were high- or low-achieving, with the exception of the highest achieving fourth graders.

5. "Over the long term in reading, the lowest performing students – those readers who struggle the most – have made no progress from the first NAEP administration almost 30 years ago," she said.

6. ...the scores of lower performing students declined in three of the four grade-subject combinations and those drops are what accounted for the overall drop in average scores."
https://www.usnews.com/news/educati...ores-drop-in-math-and-reading-for-us-students



It is not the students, the sub-groups, the color, the wealth.....

.....it is the political perspective that owns and operates the schools.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, America Does Not "Need a Hate Speech Law"

When Establishment figures declare that they've changed their mind on free speech and now think there should be less of it, know that the speech they expect will get throttled is yours, not theirs.

This new Washington Post opinion piece ("Why America needs a hate speech law") is by Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time magazine and the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. In that post, he was charged with representing America's values to the world.

Honestly, could Stengel's argument be any weaker? "Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. ... it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another."

If the prospect of violence by offended groups is what causes us to censor, we are well on the way toward closing down speech at the whim of whichever mobs, here or abroad, decide to be violent. Perhaps the position the sophisticated Arab diplomats urged on him was not the last word in sophistication. And while Stengel might be expecting that persons much like himself will be in charge of defining "hate," that is not how it always works.

Stengel's piece was not a Post editorial but an opinion piece contributed from the outside. Both newspapers regularly run pieces that do not necessarily represent their editors' views.

But it is noteworthy as well as disturbing that Establishment voices like Stengel's are saying these things and that places like the Post are increasingly treating them as just part of the range of respectable opinion.

Remarkable detail: Stengel served as chief executive of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia from 2004 to 2006.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Student Thinks There’s Too Much Free Speech on Campus After Encountering Pro-Life Group
The College Fix reports:

Student files complaint against pro-life group, saying there’s too much free speech

While walking on the Florida State University campus earlier this year, a student noticed a pro-life group holding signs “advocating for anti-abortion propaganda.”

According to the student, the protesters “were stopping innocent students simply trying to walk to their classes by harassing them and forcing their own beliefs onto these students.”

“Campus is supposed to be a safe environment and I was extremely uncomfortable and disappointed in FSU today,” the student said. “Nothing was being done to protect students from this harassment.”

“I understand that freedom of speech is a crucial part of today’s world, however, it should not be to this extent while on a school campus,” the student wrote in a March complaint to the FSU campus behavior reporting system.

In the complaint, the student recommended “Some sort of action to prevent [groups] from being able to harass others while walking to class,” saying “this is not the first time that I have felt uncomfortable while on campus.”

This complaint is one of the 31 filed with FSU during the 2018-19 school year that have been obtained by The College Fix through a public records act request. The names of the individuals involved were redacted by the university to protect their identities."
Student Thinks There's Too Much Free Speech on Campus After Encountering Pro-Life Group



What happened to the idealism, the love of America and liberty?????


Government schooling happened.

 

[NoVote]

What I see happening today in America is a death wish by the left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I see happening today in America is a death wish by the left.

They need another 49-state landslide against them to help them become an American party once again.

 

[Lesh]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no such thing as 'hate speech.'

That is a term of art designed by the Left, those who cannot win a debate of ideas, to shut the other side up.

Or.....find the term in the law of the land, the Constitution, you Fascist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"That free speech is under assault online by “woke" Internet overlords is nothing new.

The woke crowd has been infiltrating social media platforms from the beginning, now they’ve metastasized to the point that they’re virtually running the show. Anything they deem offensive, which is just about everything, runs risk of being deleted and those with insufficiently woke thoughts of being banned.

But not for much longer. A new option is about to come into being that promises to be what Facebook was supposed to be: a place where anyone – liberals, conservatives, independents, or disinterested in politics altogether – can say whatever like.

The idea of people speaking freely shouldn’t be controversial, online or in life, that it is is a testament to just how engrained in society the oppressive progressive mindset has become. Without pushback, without options and the market forces that come with competition, free speech on the Internet would be wiped cleaner than Hillary Clinton’s email server. That’s what makes Thinkspot so interesting and important.


Thinkspot ... offering something ....that will appeal to an audience disillusioned with not only the thought-policing on Facebook and Twitter, ....everyone else who has had enough of the entire concept of thought-policing. Or, as the site puts it, “thinkspot is a collaborative community where individuals can explore and exchange ideas in a thoughtful and respectful manner. The platform is an intellectual playground for censorship-free discourse.”


Thinkspot ...It’s for people who aren’t afraid to disagree or people who disagree with them."
Fulfilling The Promise Of Free Speech Online

 

[Yarddog]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

You CANT criminalize hate speech, because then political power lies in the hands of whoever in power gets to define what Hate speech is.That tool by the government could be misused, which is why we have the 1st amendment. People should have the right however, to counter what they see as hate speech and society... the people, not the government, can still reject it.

 

[alang1216]

Who controls government school?????

We do. As in Americans. In my neck of the woods, voters in our county elect a school board and they control our schools. if school boards are run by Progressives....Liberals....Democrats someone is voting them in. Or are conservative too stupid and uninformed about the candidates and elections, or do they just not care about education?

 

[Cellblock2429]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

/———/ I support all speech even the kind I find offensive.

 

[alang1216]

There is no such thing as 'hate speech.'

That is a term of art designed by the Left, those who cannot win a debate of ideas, to shut the other side up.

Or.....find the term in the law of the land, the Constitution, you Fascist.

If you're looking for hate speech AND fascists you need look no further than your liberal-hating friends at Stormfront:

The truth is "hate" to those who hate the truth!
We are a community of racial realists and idealists. Black, Hispanic, Asian and Jewish Nationalists openly support their racial interests, with American taxpayers even required to support the Jewish ethnostate of Israel. We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples, including ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!​

 

[Pilot1]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

YES. We have the Natural Right of Free Speech ESPECIALLY FOR THE SPEECH WE DON'T LIKE OR DISAGREE. Anything could potentially be defined as Hate Speech. Why do you hate Rights, Freedom and Liberty so much?

 

[alang1216]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

/———/ I support all speech even the kind I find offensive.

Wow, someone even more liberal than me. I don't think ISIS should be allowed to post their hate on the web but I'm sure they are thankful for your support.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In this precinct some of us have regularly posted that Democrats/Progressives are, in fact, Fascists.

Now...right in the Liberal house organ, the Washington Post, the open admission of a desire to end the first amendment, to do away with free speech.


1. "Why America needs a hate speech law

2. Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time, is the author of “Information Wars” and was the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. [Whose administration was this???]



3. ...I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
[Before he got in touch with his inner Nazi.]

4. But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
[He takes his cues on freedom from 'Arab diplomats'?????]


5. ... the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.
[This imbecile....er, Democrat should read
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/





We have warned America for some time....if the Democrats ever gain total control of the Supreme Court, they will end free speech.
Justice Kagan has a history of opposing free speech.

The handwriting is on the wall.

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

No such thing.
We only have safe space punks who cant stand to be contradicted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who controls government school?????

We do. As in Americans. In my neck of the woods, voters in our county elect a school board and they control our schools. if school boards are run by Progressives....Liberals....Democrats someone is voting them in. Or are conservative too stupid and uninformed about the candidates and elections, or do they just not care about education?

Let's review.


OK, OK....let's go back to basics:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.




" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup


Get it now????



The question was, who controls government schools.

You failed the test.

The answer is, it is Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, who advance Marxist, and neo-Marxist and Social Justice rather than education.



This must be why you do so poorly:

"So…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “

Easy To Convince The Uneducated

 

[MAGAman]

so just to be clear... you stand in support of hate speech

Ok

So just to be clear.... You stand in opposition to the 1st Amendment.

OK