Only Fascists Assail Free Speech

[PoliticalChic]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

 

[NYcarbineer]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

She is merely reiterated a standard view of the 1st Amendment. The Court has every right, and in fact a duty, to weight the 'societal costs' when making a free speech judgment.

That's why for example child pornography is not protected as free speech or freedom of the press.

Your belief that government can and should restrict free speech is redolent of every fascist endeavor.

Your post could hardly be more appropriate for this thread.

I dont consider denying 1st amendment protection to child pornography to be fascistic.

Why do you?

 

[David_42]

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

She is merely reiterated a standard view of the 1st Amendment. The Court has every right, and in fact a duty, to weight the 'societal costs' when making a free speech judgment.

That's why for example child pornography is not protected as free speech or freedom of the press.

Your belief that government can and should restrict free speech is redolent of every fascist endeavor.

Your post could hardly be more appropriate for this thread.

I dont consider denying 1st amendment protection to child pornography to be fascistic.

Why do you?

MUHHH FREE SPEEEECH. IF I CANT LOOK AT CP, THR GUBERMENT WILL TAKE MY KIDS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

I respond this way because I am an American.

One can only attribute your lack of concern to being less of one.

I need to make some more popcorn, your posts are pure comedy gold. I'm a college student and most of my professors are liberal, guess that means I'm indoctrinated.. LOL.

Your admission to being Liberally indoctrinated can only be called 'gilding the lily."

Look it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

-

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

 

[David_42]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

I respond this way because I am an American.

One can only attribute your lack of concern to being less of one.

I need to make some more popcorn, your posts are pure comedy gold. I'm a college student and most of my professors are liberal, guess that means I'm indoctrinated.. LOL.

Your admission to being Liberally indoctrinated can only be called 'gilding the lily."

Look it up.

Haha, I've been a left leaning person since middle school, college professors aren't secretly brainwashing anyone.

 

[eagle7_31]

One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

Guess who was a big fan of free speech zones.

Free Speech Under Fire: The ACLU Challenge to "Protest Zones"

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

When a campus group starting back in the 1980's first published 'The Dartmouth Review' some liberals (so called) tried to stop publication. The Dartmouth review eventually won out after some legal haggling back and forth.

 

[David_42]

-

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

Funny thing, politicalchic is probably the same bitch defending the right of the bigoted bakers to be bigots, but oh no, if a private college does it, MUH FREE SPEECH.

 

[PoliticalChic]

-

Politicians in general like to limit opposing speech as much as possible. Hillary did something similar when she shuffled BLM into a private room and met with them separately during one of her events - she didn't want them messing with her supporters clapping during the speech.

This is, of course, not the same thing as what you posted as Bush used the force of government to enforce illegal speech zones but then again, Bush is a great example of someone that was clearly NOT on the side of 'freedom' <PA act cough, cough>

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

The First Amendment is not optional at public colleges -- it’s the law..

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would be curious to know what freedom of speech exercise the Government has taken away from the author of this thread,

that affected her personally.

I respond this way because I am an American.

One can only attribute your lack of concern to being less of one.

I need to make some more popcorn, your posts are pure comedy gold. I'm a college student and most of my professors are liberal, guess that means I'm indoctrinated.. LOL.

Your admission to being Liberally indoctrinated can only be called 'gilding the lily."

Look it up.

Tell him what school you went to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

-

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

Funny thing, politicalchic is probably the same bitch defending the right of the bigoted bakers to be bigots, but oh no, if a private college does it, MUH FREE SPEECH.

-

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

The First Amendment is not optional at public colleges -- it’s the law..

The First Amendment has nothing to do with whether or not an individual can get a speaking gig at a college.

 

[francoHFW]

Fox etc etc etc are still free to lie about everything, like that fascists are leftists lol...political gobbelygook/RW idiocy.

 

[eagle7_31]

Fox etc etc etc are still free to lie about everything, like that fascists are leftists lol...political gobbelygook/RW idiocy.

exceeded by your own. Too bad for you we are still not a one party leftist state.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's time to actually read the first amendment, don't you think?


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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can anyone point out precisely when and where congress passed a law abridging the right to free speech?

Does anyone understand all the colors of the political spectrum and understand the stark differences between the terms "Fascist" and "Liberal"?

If the OP is correct in the least, these definitions and examples of Congress abridging speech should be readily apparent, But, the OP has a grasp exceeding her feeble reach.

I recognize that you are late to the party....but, take a moment, and peruse post #21.....

Note carefully the bottom budget note.

So in your mind, the state legislature in New Jersey and Rutgers University is the same as the Congress of the United States of America and budget appropriations by Rutgers is the same as passing a law abridging free speech.

You seem to hang you feeble argument on the slenderest reeds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:20

In no other venue is it more appropriate to apply this admonition than the Liberal attack on free speech.
Progressive Woodrow Wilson offered the idea that the Constitution should be thrown out.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Brennan attempted to emasculate the Constitution, claiming that it could not be read (it is written in English) and it's obverse, the "living Constitution" was better suited to the nation.



10. The Liberal monasteries, the universities, make no secret of their attitudes toward America, free speech, and the Constitution itself.


a. " MODESTO, Calif., September 19, 2013—In a stunning illustration of the attitude taken towards free speech by too many colleges across the United States, Modesto Junior College in California told a student that he could not pass out copies of the United States Constitution outside the student center on September 17, 2013—Constitution Day." California College Forbids Passing Out Constitutions... On Constitution Day - FIRE



b. "The US Constitution seems to be a particular target of the illiberal left busybodies who dominate taxpayer-funded schools." Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech," p. 91.



c." Penn State Officials Threaten to Call Police on Students Handing Out US Constitutions (Video)" Penn State Officials Threaten to Call Police on Students Handing Out US Constitutions (Video) - The Gateway Pundit


d. "Hawaiian University Sued For Blocking Students From Passing Out Copies Of The Constitution... First Amendment right to free speech was infringed upon during a January event where school officials stopped them as they passed out copies of the Constitution, .... the university “unconstitutionally restricts access to open areas on campus by requiring students to seek permission to speak at least seven business days in advance.”
“The First Amendment is not optional at public colleges -- it’s the law..." Another University Stops Students From Passing Out Copies Of The Constitution




Now...which of these political movements acts in this manner:
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Right...all of 'em.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pick one word to represent America.....you'd probably pick some iteration of "freedom."
The aspect of 'freedom' most often mentioned is freedom of speech.

Sadly, the stronger the Left's influence abounds, the less of that free speech is available.




1. "Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%). Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.


2. Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.




3. The majority of Americans believes that the First Amendment does not go too far in the rights it guarantees. The gap between those who believe it goes too far and not too far has generally increased over time; however, this year there was a significant increase in those who claimed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting individual rights.

a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

b. Additionally, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to say that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fifty-two percent of African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics agree, while only 29% of whites agree that the First Amendment goes too far.





4. Americans who identify as liberal or moderate are more likely than those who identify as conservative to agree that the news media attempt to report stories without bias. Fifty-one percent of liberals, 50% of moderates and 37% of conservatives support the statement."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf



Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech.

Since you are talking about the First Amendment, it might be wise to review the actual language: "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment applies to Congress (federal government) and is applicable to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925):

"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States . . . It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom."

The title of your thread is "Only Fascists Assail Free Speech". Your post sets forth 4 premises:

Briefly, your 4 premises are:
1) 47 percent of people [of 1006 people who responded to a telephone survey] identified "freedom of speech" as the most important freedom; 2) 59 percent of people [surveyed] could identify "freedom of speech" as a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment; 3) The majority of the people [surveyed] believe the First Amendment does not go too far in protecting freedom; and 4) 51 percent of the "liberals" [surveyed, and without knowing how many of the 1006 people surveyed identified themselves as "liberal"], agreed with the statement, "the news media attempt to report stories without bias."

Based on these premises, you concluded: "Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech."

We can cut to the chase:
Are you a supporter of free speech, or one who would rather leave the determination of what is allowed to be said...or thought...up to those elected officials, bureaucrats, and unelected judges?

I'm a moderate ... very much in the center and very much a supporter of our constitutional republic. You might consider some of my mainstream views as "liberal" if you are a far right-wing loony bird.

I'm not a fascist, so your attempt to bolster your invalid and unsound argument with a one-person survey is absurd.

The First Amendment applies only to government disparagements of "free speech" through our laws. If a particular law violates your "free speech", then the law should be struck down as unconstitutional on its face and/or as applied to your situation. The First Amendment, however, does not mean "freedom from criticism". I am not the government ... I am not a fascist ... and I have criticized your argument as invalid and unsound. That criticism is not against the law.

Exactly.

Determining whether freedom of speech or expression has been violated is the sole purview of the courts, and only government is in a position to potentially violate free speech or expression.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person; and for one private person to be critical of another private person's speech in the context of private society does not 'violate' free speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PC is failing right through the thread.

She has failed to define American Nazi left and has failed to defend against right wing Christian crazies trying to stop free speech.

Likely because there is no such thing as the 'American Nazi left,' the notion is idiocy; fascism in general and National Socialism in particular are on the right side of the political spectrum.

 

[francoHFW]

-

Note the following....Obama's selection for the Supreme Court:

"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?

Wonder if some of our liberal friends have seen what happens to some conservative professors, speakers etc on some college campuses over the recent years.

What free speech right does a speaker have to give a speech at any particular college?

Seems you're not familiar with this case:

"The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous."
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Clear enough?

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

What free speech right is violated if a college chooses not to bring in a certain person to give a speech?

Funny thing, politicalchic is probably the same bitch defending the right of the bigoted bakers to be bigots, but oh no, if a private college does it, MUH FREE SPEECH.

I guess she wants to force bakers to have gay speakers in the bakery...

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's time to actually read the first amendment, don't you think?


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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can anyone point out precisely when and where congress passed a law abridging the right to free speech?

Does anyone understand all the colors of the political spectrum and understand the stark differences between the terms "Fascist" and "Liberal"?

If the OP is correct in the least, these definitions and examples of Congress abridging speech should be readily apparent, But, the OP has a grasp exceeding her feeble reach.

I recognize that you are late to the party....but, take a moment, and peruse post #21.....

Note carefully the bottom budget note.

So in your mind, the state legislature in New Jersey and Rutgers University is the same as the Congress of the United States of America and budget appropriations by Rutgers is the same as passing a law abridging free speech.

You seem to hang you feeble argument on the slenderest reeds.

"So in your mind, the state legislature in New Jersey and Rutgers University is the same as the Congress of the United States of America and budget appropriations by Rutgers is the same as passing a law abridging free speech."

You seem to be ignorant of fact that almost every one of the bill of rights has been incorporated to the states.

Look it up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fox etc etc etc are still free to lie about everything, like that fascists are leftists lol...political gobbelygook/RW idiocy.

This is a serious request, blanko....

I'd love to use this post of yours for a thread about Fox....

You OK with my using your name?

Of course,the thread will show how utterly, abysmally,and totally incorrect you are....
...but you must be used to that.