Idiot Howard Dean: 'Hate Speech Is Not Protected By The First Amendment' (I Beg To Differ!)

[Dogmaphobe]

You want some real hate speech? Just mention the word Israel to the rabid leftist brownshirts who seek to prevent conservatives from speaking.

You mean rabid neo-fascits alt right brownshirts. I am glad to fix it for you, so no need to thank me. The hard right antifas will never be allowed to end free speech.

I am sorry you are stupid, Jake, I really am.

The Regressive Left is not stupid. They're dishonest and cowardly..

I don't think these traits are mutually exclusive. Jakey is certainly dishonest and cowardly, but a person cannot be intelligent when they live in such a childish, simple-minded world that they react to an action based upon no more complexity of thought than whether it is labeled right or left.

I think a perfectly intelligent person can be overcome by partisan ideology. They're two parallel tracks. And part of being overcome by a partisan ideology is lying to yourself and others as naturally as you breathe. It's like an infection, an affliction.

Somewhere, on some level, these people know what they're doing. But their affliction, maybe akin to alcoholism, makes them say things they know just aren't true.

My theory, anyway. This stuff is fascinating to me.
.

Well, yes, it is fascinating to me as well. I read Eric Hoffer's "The true believer" back in the late sixties.

The driving force in left wing authoritarianism is a heightened sense of group identification and fear of ostracism, but that does not mean Jakey is also intelligent. His schtik is so childish as to be parody.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dean's tweet by itself was incorrect, but the context was Ann Coulter and appearing at Berkeley.

She has no 'free speech' right to speak at Berkeley.

As long as Berkley gets federal funds she does.

Look, I'm ALL for defunding Berkley. If we MUST use federal funds for higher education, make it in the form of vouchers that a student can spend as they choose. End ALL grants to the Marxist shit holes.

Give me ANY credible evidence you have that the 1st Amendment requires public schools to pay people to give speeches just because they want to give a speech there.

 

[Mac1958]

You mean rabid neo-fascits alt right brownshirts. I am glad to fix it for you, so no need to thank me. The hard right antifas will never be allowed to end free speech.

I am sorry you are stupid, Jake, I really am.

The Regressive Left is not stupid. They're dishonest and cowardly..

I don't think these traits are mutually exclusive. Jakey is certainly dishonest and cowardly, but a person cannot be intelligent when they live in such a childish, simple-minded world that they react to an action based upon no more complexity of thought than whether it is labeled right or left.

I think a perfectly intelligent person can be overcome by partisan ideology. They're two parallel tracks. And part of being overcome by a partisan ideology is lying to yourself and others as naturally as you breathe. It's like an infection, an affliction.

Somewhere, on some level, these people know what they're doing. But their affliction, maybe akin to alcoholism, makes them say things they know just aren't true.

My theory, anyway. This stuff is fascinating to me.
.

Well, yes, it is fascinating to me as well. I read Eric Hoffer's "The true believer" back in the late sixties.

The driving force in left wing authoritarianism is a heightened sense of group identification and fear of ostracism, but that does not mean Jakey is also intelligent. His schtik is so childish as to be parody.

I honestly don't know what's going on with that one.
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dean's tweet by itself was incorrect, but the context was Ann Coulter and appearing at Berkeley.

She has no 'free speech' right to speak at Berkeley.

Sure she does. Berkeley is a public tax supported university. That means it has an obligation to allow all sides of an issue to express their views.

No they don't.

Nor do we the people have an obligation to provide federal funding. HOWEVER, if an institution does accept federal funding then they are bound by Title II, VII, and IX. Berkley MUST respect free speech, or lose federal funding, which Trump pointed out to them. (which is why they backed down on Coulter.)

The 1st Amendment does not require anyone public or private to hire anyone to give a speech just because that person wants to.

The 1964 civil rights act provides for equality of access. Because Berkley routinely has fascist democrats, terrorists, and foreign dictators come and speak, they cannot block others from speaking on the basis that they support America.

You fascists seek to end freedom of speech (all civil rights, really) but Berkley does so at a high cost. Obama and the corrupt Holder DOJ did not enforce the law, but Obama is off in Indonesian bath houses now. Trump, DeVos and Sessions will cut off all funding to these Marxist shit holes. You jackbooted thugs are going to have to abide by the law for the next 8 years.

 

[depotoo]

Oh, please. You can't be serious. So words are no longer protected but violent art work toward a President is, which could produce ideas or invoke violence from either side whether through revenge or producing an idiot to attempt to behead isn't. And this was done by a public university professor.
What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

Of course it does not. You could paint one of Obama, and it would not invite reprisal. You don't understand any of this.

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

 

[depotoo]

Only on one side of the spectrum, as we all know well.

Dean's tweet by itself was incorrect, but the context was Ann Coulter and appearing at Berkeley.

She has no 'free speech' right to speak at Berkeley.

Sure she does. Berkeley is a public tax supported university. That means it has an obligation to allow all sides of an issue to express their views.

No they don't.

Nor do we the people have an obligation to provide federal funding. HOWEVER, if an institution does accept federal funding then they are bound by Title II, VII, and IX. Berkley MUST respect free speech, or lose federal funding, which Trump pointed out to them. (which is why they backed down on Coulter.)

The 1st Amendment does not require anyone public or private to hire anyone to give a speech just because that person wants to.

The 1964 civil rights act provides for equality of access. Because Berkley routinely has fascist democrats, terrorists, and foreign dictators come and speak, they cannot block others from speaking on the basis that they support America.

You fascists seek to end freedom of speech (all civil rights, really) but Berkley does so at a high cost. Obama and the corrupt Holder DOJ did not enforce the law, but Obama is off in Indonesian bath houses now. Trump, DeVos and Sessions will cut off all funding to these Marxist shit holes. You jackbooted thugs are going to have to abide by the law for the next 8 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

I would not have a problem with that being ineligible for free speech protection. It is right on the edge of being a death threat, and maybe over that edge.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

I would not have a problem with that being ineligible for free speech protection. It is right on the edge of being a death threat, and maybe over that edge.

Having said that I should add that if that were Obama's severed head, I couldn't a RWnut around here to agree with me.

 

[depotoo]

And that slippery slope begins, eroding slowly....

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

I would not have a problem with that being ineligible for free speech protection. It is right on the edge of being a death threat, and maybe over that edge.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dean's tweet by itself was incorrect, but the context was Ann Coulter and appearing at Berkeley.

She has no 'free speech' right to speak at Berkeley.

As long as Berkley gets federal funds she does.

Look, I'm ALL for defunding Berkley. If we MUST use federal funds for higher education, make it in the form of vouchers that a student can spend as they choose. End ALL grants to the Marxist shit holes.

Give me ANY credible evidence you have that the 1st Amendment requires public schools to pay people to give speeches just because they want to give a speech there.

Berkley isn't paying Coulter, Brownshirt. She was invited by the "Young Conservatives," who are paying her. The 1964 civil rights act mandates EQUAL ACCESS. Because Berkley routinely has leftist and anti-American speakers (beyond even the professors) they violate Title II when they block pro-American speakers. Since MeCha was allowed to have Vicente Fox, Berkley cannot deny equal access and retain federal funding.

You Nazicrats lost this round.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then why do you rightwing nuts complain about flag burning?

They say protected speech is only what they do, not what others they do not like do.

No they don't, Nazi, and you know it.

You might want to search 'flag burning' on this forum and see how many of your rightwing pals support it being a right.

More oppose it, Nazicrat.

I see none of you fascists condemning Dean, quite the opposite.

Condemn him? For being technically imprecise?

For attacking the 1st Amendment.

Of COURSE you Nazicrats won't condemn that, you PRAISE attacks on the bill of rights.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The more these Antifa goons try to disrupt and deny free speech, the more the numbers of the opposition to them

will swell with Americans from all walks of life.

There's many more Americans willing to fight for free speech than Antifa punks.

Oops, wrong thread.

Yank Berkeley's funding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

depotoo does not understand constitutional concepts. The picture is free speech, clearly. Shouting the N word in Watts is not free speech. Shouting fire in a theatre is not free speech. Coulter has no free speech right at UCB to be invited to speak.

The hard right antifas are so easily confounded here. You are one, others include Uncensored and MarionMorrison and bear and the regressive Mac1958.

Calm down and think about it, guys.

Oh, please. You can't be serious. So words are no longer protected but violent art work toward a President is, which could produce ideas or invoke violence from either side whether through revenge or producing an idiot to attempt to behead isn't. And this was done by a public university professor. What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

I would not have a problem with that being ineligible for free speech protection. It is right on the edge of being a death threat, and maybe over that edge.

Bullshit.

That the work offends some is irrelevant, IF we do not protect offensive expression, then there is NO freedom of speech, which is exactly what you Nazicrats seek.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the piece of art the Dems claimed this morning is protected by the First, depicting Trump being beheaded is not true, since it could invite reprisal, or violent action?

That's right! Howard Dean is the epitome of an idiot. So called 'Hate Speech' (whatever that is) is indeed protected by the First Amendment. I can't say how many times in my life I called a negro a 'nigg*r' to his/her face and never was arrested for cotton picking hate speech.

As for Howard Dean....yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh
Howard Dean's Scream

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/idiot-howard-dean-gets-destroyed-claiming-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment/

No, you have not done anything of the sort. Hate Speech that would logically invite retaliation and physical reprisal can be stopped by LEO, and the speaker can be taken into custody if s/he does not stop when so ordered.

I would not have a problem with that being ineligible for free speech protection. It is right on the edge of being a death threat, and maybe over that edge.

Having said that I should add that if that were Obama's severed head, I couldn't a RWnut around here to agree with me.

If it were Obama's severed head, the artist would be in prison.

 

[12icer]

Yes shouting N***er in any place IS protected speech, otherwise liberal dogshit can't go to town halls, and disrupt them with violence and hateFUL speech against the orator and his platform.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

depotoo does not understand constitutional concepts. The picture is free speech, clearly. Shouting the N word in Watts is not free speech. Shouting fire in a theatre is not free speech. Coulter has no free speech right at UCB to be invited to speak.

The hard right antifas are so easily confounded here. You are one, others include Uncensored and MarionMorrison and bear and the regressive Mac1958.

Calm down and think about it, guys.

Oh, please. You can't be serious. So words are no longer protected but violent art work toward a President is, which could produce ideas or invoke violence from either side whether through revenge or producing an idiot to attempt to behead isn't. And this was done by a public university professor. What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

Onehudredfuckingfourtyseventhousand posts here, and still not a single original or coherent thought.

My mind is blown by such incredible dedication.

 

[Mac1958]

If it were Obama's severed head, the artist would be in prison.

Yep, and the PC Zealots would be celebrating.
.

 

[whitehall]

Did Dean say hate speech was protected or wasn't protected by the 1st Amendment? It's hard to believe that democrats would claim that hate speech wasn't protected since they have been engaging in nothing but hate speech since Trump was elected. Hypocrites on the left often cite the 1st Amendment when they feel like smashing windows or setting fire to cars or hanging the President in effigy but they turn their heads when the symbol of Christianity is smeared in animal feces or dunked in a vat of urine. Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment but just like every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights there are legal and social limits.

 

[12icer]

HEH HEH Dogmaphobe, Surely you don't expect anything but childish fantasy from dimshit supporters. They to a one are intellectually challenged and indoctrinated with the failure rhetoric their ruling class idols blanket them with from birth to control their entire outlook on existence