Only Fascists Assail Free Speech

[JakeStarkey]

PC, start a thread on Fox. Let's watch you fail there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

-

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...

C'mon, blanko......say I can use post #156!

I demand it!

It's perfect Leftism!!!!

I'll make you famous....well, infamous.

You can take it! It'd just be another day in the mines!

 

[Debra K]

Over all the white noise this stuck out to me the most:

"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."

That is concerning to me as I see the right to free speech as the cornerstone of all rights. Without free speech the government can essentially control what you think through eliminating opposing views. Where does the increasing trend in thinking that the first amendment goes to far come from? I think it should be damn near zero percent that hold such a view.

This was a telephone poll taken in 2013. According to source information, only 1006 people were surveyed throughout the nation. How many of those persons surveyed were 18-30 year olds? How many of those persons surveyed had any significant education about the First Amendment, specifically, or the U.S. Constitution, in general? I believe your concern over this survey is unwarranted.

Many people erroneously think that "freedom of speech" and other liberties protected by the First Amendment somehow allow them to say and do whatever they want without consequences. Many posters on this board, no matter how many times they've been provided proof to the contrary, don't understand that the First Amendment limits the government's power but doesn't leave the government toothless. In large part, the First Amendment protects people from government imposed "prior restraints" upon speech. But there are sometimes legal consequences for speech or conduct that involves speech.

Again, 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."

Even though some persons might agree with the statement that the "First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees," that does not affect how our state and federal courts apply the law to the facts. I might mock PoliticalChic's posts (because they're ridiculous), but I'm not a Fascist and she's still free to spew unsubstantiated dribble wherever she goes. Her attack on "liberals" (whom she calls "fascists") has no merit whatsoever.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Fascists like yourself.

Oooo.....looks who's sensitive about being opposed to free speech!

And he comes up with a clever "so are you" post!


OK....now you can return to the 24-Hour All Cartoon Network.

I'm not opposed to free speech at all, mind asserting how I have expressed my opposition to free speech?

Well....let's see how you respond to this post:

Here is the sad result of Liberal domination of universities....


6. "Rutgers: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Free Speech’

A guide to preventing “bias incidents” published by Rutgers University warns students that the idea of “free speech” is a lie,Campus Reform reports.

“There is no such thing as ‘free’ speech. All speech has a cost and consequences,” opens the page dedicated to the school’s “Bias Prevention & Education Committee.”The page, maintained by the school’s office of student affairs, encourages students to “think before you speak” and also offers four other core suggestions to avoid the specter of bias incidents.

“Engage,” says one tip. “Join activities, programs, courses, and practices that promote diversity and social justice.”

“Bias Acts Are: Verbal, written, physical, psychological acts that threaten or harm a person or group on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, atypical heredity or cellular blood trait, military service or veteran status,” the description reads."
Rutgers: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Free Speech’



So....better say the 'right things'...and think the 'right' thoughts.....or else!



BTW...21% of Rutgers' budget is via government funding.
Budget Facts and Figures

You keep challenging others to read your post #21, I read it over several times and, bingo, I remembered a case the Supremes heard 73 years ago. Took a while to find it but find it I did! It was:[Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute ]

This puts the lie to you reasoning through that case law, laid out in the opinion of Justice Murphy, which became the Constitutional Law of the Land.

The case affirmed New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision that when Chaplinsky, standing near town hall, yelled at the complainant, "You are a God damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists," the same being offensive, derisive and annoying words and names". [Emphasis Added - supra]

AND CONTINUED WITH THE FOLLOWING GUIDANCE:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [n2] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [n3] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [n4] It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." [Emphasis Added - supra]

2. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (Brandeis, J., concurring); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296.
3. The protection of the First Amendment, mirrored in the Fourteenth, is not limited to the Blackstonian idea that freedom of the press means only freedom from restraint prior to publication. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 714-715.
4. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1941), 149.

AND IN THE CONCLUDING REMARKS:

"Argument is unnecessary to demonstrate that the appellations "damned racketeer" and "damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace" [Emphasis Added - supra]

Based on Landmark Constitutional case law, your opinions about the limitation of free speech is wrong given that even free speech has its proscribed limits. And the folks at Rutgers got it right...there are limits to speech, as they noted which just happens to dovetail with the decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Your Post #21 FAILS!

 

[francoHFW]

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.

How so, Pub dupe? And no Dem wants one party rule, we just want the other party to have a gd clue. Thanks for the world depression, the stupidest wars ever, 6 years of mindless obstruction, and ruining the nonrich and the country. Of course, the dupes are clueless about all that. See sig.

 

[JakeStarkey]

debra k has the right of it, and pc not a clue

 

[francoHFW]

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.

As long as you link to it. Hitler was a leftist. right. BETTER be Fox lol...

 

[David_42]

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.

LOL. You're quoting the bible?

 

[Debra K]

I firmly believe that PoliticalChic is trying to suppress my freedom of speech by bullying me and calling me a "fascist".

 

[NYcarbineer]

-

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...

C'mon, blanko......say I can use post #156!

I demand it!

It's perfect Leftism!!!!

I'll make you famous....well, infamous.

You can take it! It'd just be another day in the mines!

I can match your anecdotal examples on the left with anecdotal examples on the right,

as I have every time you restart this same thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Mild cleaning done. NOT an abridgement of speech..
Enforcement of the USMB rule that every post must contain relevant content pertaining to the topic.

Thread did bog down in spots because of disputes and personal bickering.
If you got an alert about a post deletion -- Please remember this is Zone2 and if there is no topical content -- it could be a violation..

FCT

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Let me show you, again, what real suppression of free speech on campus looks like:

As found on page 51 of the BJU 2012-2013 Student Handbook:

That would be ultra-CONSERVATIVE Bob Jones University, the quintessential example of CONSERVATIVE higher education.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

In your post #141 you open with, "Seems you're not familiar with this case:"

Well, you are definitely not familiar with it and your smokescreen citation of a Wikipedia article exemplifies that in spades. The reason Brandenburg was overruled had everything to do with the abstraction of ideas and not incitement to act upon those Ideas, which can easily be read in the last two sentences of the Per Curiam Opinion:

"Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience." [ Emphasis Added]
< Brandenburg v. Ohio | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

As abhorrent as that type of speech is from bigoted minds such as KKK members that speech is not actionable in and of itself being neither bridged by action nor by inciting to action. But you had no way of knowing the reasoning that from a Wikipedia article that you puffed up as a cover to baffle some with your Super Bullshit!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The nazi left has been chipping away at the 1st Amendment for half a century. Colleges and Universities used to be centers for the open exchange of ideas and opinions and now there are actually lists of English words that are forbidden to say on campus (the "F" word isn't one of them). According to David Horowitz, every single high profile conservative speaker has been a victim of assault sometime in their career (or several times in their career) on a college campus. It's very possible that college administrations encourage attacks on freedom of speech because they disagree with the opinion and the source.

I am old enough to remember when it was those on the left wrong who successfully portrayed themselves as the champions of “free speech”. Back then, of course, “free speech” was about expressions deemed to be obscene, or vulgar, which promoted crime and immorality, or were otherwise degrading. I imagine that those on the left wrong still can be counted on to stand firmly for that concept of “free speech”.

Really, that's the broader wrong-wing view of “freedom” in general. Moving beyond expression, those on the wrong can be found standing for “freedom” with regard to sexual immorality, drug abuse, petty crime, and so on—freedom to do that which is clearly degrading and harmful.

Of course, when you come to genuine, important, meaningful freedoms, such as property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to hold and express opinions which others might find disagreeable; where are the liberals? Are they not the ones most consistently found to be standing most strongly against these genuine freedoms?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Of course, when you come to genuine, important, meaningful freedoms, such as property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to hold and express opinions which others might find disagreeable; where are the liberals? Are they not the ones most consistently found to be
standing most strongly against these genuine freedoms?

The GOP version:
1. Take over private land to build fences, we hate Wetbacks.
2. All guns all the time, but not for Muslims.
3. Fine except for *******, OWS-types, and Muslims.
4. Fine for Jews and Christians, no Muslims.
5. Fine, unless you hate Palin, Trump, or Jesus, or you like Obama or Clinton (either one).
6. Liberals are only those who liked guns, hated regulations, and owned slaves, 230 years ago...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The nazi left has been chipping away at the 1st Amendment for half a century. Colleges and Universities used to be centers for the open exchange of ideas and opinions and now there are actually lists of English words that are forbidden to say on campus (the "F" word isn't one of them). According to David Horowitz, every single high profile conservative speaker has been a victim of assault sometime in their career (or several times in their career) on a college campus. It's very possible that college administrations encourage attacks on freedom of speech because they disagree with the opinion and the source.

I am old enough to remember when it was those on the left wrong who successfully portrayed themselves as the champions of “free speech”. Back then, of course, “free speech” was about expressions deemed to be obscene, or vulgar, which promoted crime and immorality, or were otherwise degrading. I imagine that those on the left wrong still can be counted on to stand firmly for that concept of “free speech”.

Really, that's the broader wrong-wing view of “freedom” in general. Moving beyond expression, those on the wrong can be found standing for “freedom” with regard to sexual immorality, drug abuse, petty crime, and so on—freedom to do that which is clearly degrading and harmful.

Of course, when you come to genuine, important, meaningful freedoms, such as property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to hold and express opinions which others might find disagreeable; where are the liberals? Are they not the ones most consistently found to be standing most strongly against these genuine freedoms?

SSDD! Got any new/original material?

 

[boilermaker55]

There is no religious persecution in this country except, maybe, towards muslims from the right wingers.

 

[Agit8r]

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."

It's probably because conservatives are more likely to watch biased "news" sources.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, when you come to genuine, important, meaningful freedoms, such as property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, freedom of religion, the right to hold and express opinions which others might find disagreeable; where are the liberals? Are they not the ones most consistently found to be
standing most strongly against these genuine freedoms?

The GOP version:
1. Take over private land to build fences, we hate Wetbacks.
2. All guns all the time, but not for Muslims.
3. Fine except for *******, OWS-types, and Muslims.
4. Fine for Jews and Christians, no Muslims.
5. Fine, unless you hate Palin, Trump, or Jesus, or you like Obama or Clinton (either one).
6. Liberals are only those who liked guns, hated regulations, and owned slaves, 230 years ago...

Links to the above farrago of lies and misinformations?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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."

It's probably because conservatives are more likely to watch biased "news" sources.

Today, I'll rip the premise of your post to shreds,....and, without attribution, I'm gonna use your post.

I hope you get the opportunity to read it...you have soooooo much to learn from it.