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

[JakeStarkey]

Too easy. Some, among them sensitive snowflakes like Mac1958 who simply can't be corrected particularly when he is wrong, ask for conservative universities who reject speakers.

“Some speakers were rejected because of their politics, in spite of university policies prohibiting politics as a criterion for selecting speakers, and others were rejected for their ‘reputation' or statements on moral issues.”

- “BYU Rejected Speakers for Morals, Politics,” Salt Lake Tribune, April 10, 1980, p. B4

“Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).”

- D. Michael Quinn to F. Lamond Tullis, August 29, 1988, in “On Being a Mormon Historian,” p. 94; online at Link is here.

Baylor has definite limitations on speakers.
Campus Speakers
Speakers invited to the campus by any person or group of persons should be selected on the basis of their contribution to the overall educational program of the University. Baylor has no obligation to provide a forum on its campus for everyone with a speech to make. Baylor University encourages students to play an active role in the political process related to local, state and federal governments. However, candidates for public office may only be invited to speak on or in University property or facilities provided that the University makes available equal facilities to all other candidates for public office. Any student or student organizations inviting a candidate for public office to speak on campus must coordinate with the Office of Governmental Relations.

Speakers who advocate violent rebellion and illegal resistance to the laws of the state and nation or the rules of the University should not be invited. Speakers whose purposes and methods are basically contrary to the purposes and methods of a Christian university such as Baylor should not be invited. The use of profanity shall not be tolerated.

It is recognized that there will be no question as to the acceptability of most of the hundreds of speakers who come to the University campus each year, but in questionable cases those planning to invite a speaker will consult with the President of the University, who shall be the final judge of such matters. The responsibility for proper clearance shall be upon the inviting student or students and disregard of such responsibility will be grounds for university disciplinary action. Only the President or his or her designee is authorized to sign university contracts. Baylor rejects speaker - Yahoo Search Results

Liberty University Derecognizes College Democrats - FIRE

 

[pwjohn]

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/

You're wrong as usual.

Institutions whether they be private or public are under no obligation to provide the extremely high level of security Necessasary to guarantee coulters safety while she serves up her usual grind, which to some is in fact highly provocative. So for that reason alone they can tell her to piss up a rope.

That you bring up an 'extremely high level of security' would be necessary is the problem. How the hell can you side with that? Institutions being given a pass because their students might act like uncivilized cretins to a speaker sharing an alternative viewpoint is totally unacceptable, IMHO.

Quit your whining! Yur government is imposing "extremely" high levels of security on you the individual just about everywhere you go. Train stations, airports, sporting events, and so on. So get over it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Too easy. Some, among them sensitive snowflakes like Mac1958 who simply can't be corrected particularly when he is wrong, ask for conservative universities who reject speakers.

“Some speakers were rejected because of their politics, in spite of university policies prohibiting politics as a criterion for selecting speakers, and others were rejected for their ‘reputation' or statements on moral issues.”

- “BYU Rejected Speakers for Morals, Politics,” Salt Lake Tribune, April 10, 1980, p. B4

“Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).”

- D. Michael Quinn to F. Lamond Tullis, August 29, 1988, in “On Being a Mormon Historian,” p. 94; online at Link is here.

Baylor has definite limitations on speakers.
Campus Speakers
Speakers invited to the campus by any person or group of persons should be selected on the basis of their contribution to the overall educational program of the University. Baylor has no obligation to provide a forum on its campus for everyone with a speech to make. Baylor University encourages students to play an active role in the political process related to local, state and federal governments. However, candidates for public office may only be invited to speak on or in University property or facilities provided that the University makes available equal facilities to all other candidates for public office. Any student or student organizations inviting a candidate for public office to speak on campus must coordinate with the Office of Governmental Relations.

Speakers who advocate violent rebellion and illegal resistance to the laws of the state and nation or the rules of the University should not be invited. Speakers whose purposes and methods are basically contrary to the purposes and methods of a Christian university such as Baylor should not be invited. The use of profanity shall not be tolerated.

It is recognized that there will be no question as to the acceptability of most of the hundreds of speakers who come to the University campus each year, but in questionable cases those planning to invite a speaker will consult with the President of the University, who shall be the final judge of such matters. The responsibility for proper clearance shall be upon the inviting student or students and disregard of such responsibility will be grounds for university disciplinary action. Only the President or his or her designee is authorized to sign university contracts. Baylor rejects speaker - Yahoo Search Results

Liberty University Derecognizes College Democrats - FIRE

^^^ Hmmmmmm.

 

[radical right]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

 

[bripat9643]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Wrong, Nazi. Those laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Wrong, Nazi. Those laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech?

lol, good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. Perhaps that is what he is referring to?

Why is the person exercising their free speech responsible for those breaking the law?

If I stand on a street corner and I talk about how much I hate Thai food, and person from Thailand punches me, who is at fault?

Let me ask you this.

The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of the press. Does it protect the right to publish child pornography?

 

[bripat9643]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Wrong, Nazi. Those laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech?

lol, good one.

No, douche bag, your belief that hate speech laws are constitutional is obviously wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. Perhaps that is what he is referring to?

Why is the person exercising their free speech responsible for those breaking the law?

If I stand on a street corner and I talk about how much I hate Thai food, and person from Thailand punches me, who is at fault?

Let me ask you this.

The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of the press. Does it protect the right to publish child pornography?

Child pornography is evidence of a crime against a child. That's why it's illegal. On the other hand, saying bad words about someone isn't a violation of their rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Wrong, Nazi. Those laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech?

lol, good one.

No, douche bag, your belief that hate speech laws are constitutional is obviously wrong.

So someone should be able to give a speech that is filled with hate for a specific group and is specifically designed to generate violence against that group,

and that person should be blameless because of the 1st Amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. Perhaps that is what he is referring to?

Why is the person exercising their free speech responsible for those breaking the law?

If I stand on a street corner and I talk about how much I hate Thai food, and person from Thailand punches me, who is at fault?

Let me ask you this.

The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of the press. Does it protect the right to publish child pornography?

Child pornography is evidence of a crime against a child. That's why it's illegal. On the other hand, saying bad words about someone isn't a violation of their rights.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? All the Constitution says is, freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

I don't see any child porno exception in that wording.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If someone yells at me just because I like a certain sports team, that's a hate crime.

I am being singled out for hate because I am affiliated with a certain group.

"NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEEEEEEY, GOODBYE!!!" is a HATE CRIME!!

 

[Billo_Really]

When do Trump supporters show up at leftwing protests specifically to beat them up?

They did at Berkley. A whole lot of them; dressed in riot gear and ready to fight.

Two snowflake thugs got arrested for using the methods you endorse? What should I have to say about that?

Two teenage kids set fire to a Trump sign and got charged with a hate crime and you don't even have the stones to comment on it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Dean's translation:

HATE SPEECH is anything the left disagrees with.

Fall in line, or be personally attacked.

They should of used the middle finger. Or gang signs. I like that picture. That was very liberal of them.

 

[Billo_Really]

I would say that you need to learn how to comprehend what is going on about you. The discussion is centered around the use of language in a way that some would find offensive. What you posted is charges agains a physical act of vandalism.

Two separate issues.

No they're not. They're being charged with a hate crime. Hate speech and hate crime go hand in hand. You claim you have the right to hate speech under the 1st amendment, while your ilk is going out of their way to charge two teens with a hate crime for torching a political sign. You're a fucking hypocrite!

 

[bripat9643]

You knew it was only a matter time until some leftwinger said what they really think. They want to outlaw hate speech - meaning any speech they disagree with.

Hate speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. It is defined in law. And falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.

Wrong, Nazi. Those laws are a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech?

lol, good one.

No, douche bag, your belief that hate speech laws are constitutional is obviously wrong.

So someone should be able to give a speech that is filled with hate for a specific group and is specifically designed to generate violence against that group,

and that person should be blameless because of the 1st Amendment?

You characterization of Anne Coulter's speech is bullshit, of course.

It's your opinion that anyone's speech is "designed to generate violence." The fact that it pisses off snowflakes like you is no evidence of that. Truth pisses you off. Apparently you believe people shouldn't be allowed to tell the truth. Don't deny it. Truth Is what pisses you off and is what you want to outlaw.

Yes, the First Amendment protects Ann Coulter's right to tell the truth, even if it pissed you off.

 

[bripat9643]

Speech that incites violence is not protected by the first amendment. Perhaps that is what he is referring to?

Why is the person exercising their free speech responsible for those breaking the law?

If I stand on a street corner and I talk about how much I hate Thai food, and person from Thailand punches me, who is at fault?

Let me ask you this.

The 1st Amendment also protects freedom of the press. Does it protect the right to publish child pornography?

Child pornography is evidence of a crime against a child. That's why it's illegal. On the other hand, saying bad words about someone isn't a violation of their rights.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? All the Constitution says is, freedom of the press shall not be abridged,

I don't see any child porno exception in that wording.

Is pedophilia a crime?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Shutting down opposing voices is unAmerican, but remember, these are people who aren't that fond of the country to begin with.
.

What is especially ironic about these brownshirts is that they are actually convinced that their utter contempt for the liberal principle of freedom of speech is now a necessary component of being a modern liberal.

 

[Mac1958]

Shutting down opposing voices is unAmerican, but remember, these are people who aren't that fond of the country to begin with.

What is especially ironic about these brownshirts is that they are actually convinced that their utter contempt for the liberal principle of freedom of speech is now a necessary component of being a modern liberal.

Oh yeah. From what I've seen, they appear to think of themselves as liberals, although some will opt for the more telling "progressive" designation.

As I mentioned in another thread, I've developed a great respect for the power of ideology. These people are just consumed.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Shutting down opposing voices is unAmerican, but remember, these are people who aren't that fond of the country to begin with.

What is especially ironic about these brownshirts is that they are actually convinced that their utter contempt for the liberal principle of freedom of speech is now a necessary component of being a modern liberal.

Oh yeah. From what I've seen, they appear to think of themselves as liberals, although some will opt for the more telling "progressive" designation.

As I mentioned in another thread, I've developed a great respect for the power of ideology. These people are just consumed.
.

I like to use the boiling lobster analogy, myself. The left in America has gradually shifted from being a proponent of liberal values to an opponent in many ways such as we see here in this thread or in so many others. Since the shift has been gradual, however, very few seem to notice and their allegiance to their identification as "left" precludes them from examining their own opinions in relation to what is or is not liberal.

Their extreme authoritarianism is the antithesis of liberalism, and they have become everything they hate by jousting at an imaginary windmill they call "fascism" by being utterly fascist, themselves.