You Can Take The Boy Out Of The Country….

[alang1216]

9. Here is the Democrat rationale for restricting free speech.


“The idea here is to let anyone who decides they are injured by words to seek redress. Put another way, the State shall punish any speech it deems offensive. Put another “other” way, speech policing by the Left.

No surprises here. Nothing new, not really. We’ve emptied a digital forest on the matter and provided proof of this goal with votes at every level of government.
Democrats want to shut you up. Hate speech is the hill they want your speech to die on.

We know what this looks like. No right to religious conscience. Compelled speech. Mob tactics and intimidation to silence ideas and policies the Left opposes. Public harassment, doxxing, riots. And let us not forget the labeling – white supremacist, Nazi, hater, blah blah blah.


It’s what every tyranny craves, and Democrats want it bad.”
California Democrat Party Convention Amends Free Speech and the First Amendment - Granite Grok




If you would overlook a little thing like obliterating the first amendment to the Constitution in order to vote Democrat….


….what wouldn’t you overlook?

I do so love you. I could never make this stuff up without my irony alarm going off.

If you're looking for someone who wants to restrict free speech:
Trump suggests libel laws should be changed after uproar over Woodward book

 

[PoliticalChic]

As documented above, Communist/Nazi Angela Merkel favors ending free speech.

There's not even 6° of separation between her view, and that of Democrats.

10. “Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech
A new poll shows that a majority of Democrats want to limit free speech with laws that would prohibit so-called “hate speech.”

The YouGov poll published Wednesday found that 51 percent of Democrats favor imposing legal limits on free speech while just 26 percent of Democrats oppose the idea.



By a ratio of nearly 2:1, Democrats believe free speech should be curtailed when it involves “hatred” for another group. The exact nature of “hatred” is undefined, but real-world examples demonstrate it can be something as simple as drawing a cartoon of Muhammad.



A clear example of this desire to limit speech can be found in the New York Times editorial board’s reaction to the attack in Garland. In a piece titled, “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech,” the Times criticizes Pam Geller, the organizer of the cartoon contest and the intended victim of the attack. Speaking of Geller, the Times wrote, “she achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims.” The Times goes on to argue that no amount of violence—not the Charlie Hebdo attacks, not the theatrical brutality of ISIS, not even 9/11—can justify “provocations” (i.e. cartoons) of Islam. This is the severely limited view of the 1st amendment the left-leaning NYT has already embraced.”
Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech | Breitbart




Hard to tell on Nazi from another......

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Leftists cannot win the debate of ideas: conservatives eat Liberal’s lunch. That explains the following:

First on the list of targets for Communists, Fascists.....and Liberals......is Free Speech.

Case in point, CNN news-speaker, and grad of..."Yale University, where he obtained an undergraduate degree, and Fordham University where he obtained his Juris Doctor (J.D.). He is a licensed attorney.
He currently works at CNN,[1][2] and has previously been the ABC Newschief law and justice correspondent and the co-anchor for ABC's 20/20."
Chris Cuomo - Wikipedia


One smart Liberal, huh?


3. With all that supposed education, Liberal Democrat Cuomo said this:

"Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.

Chris Cuomo is a law-school graduate. He was once the chief law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He is a host of a show on a network that bills itself as “the most trusted name in news.” Given all that, he really ought to know better.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



No wonder the majority of Democrats favor ending free speech.....that's CNN's audience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Eugene Volokh is a legal scholar known for his scholarship in American constitutional law and libertarianism, as well as his prominent legal blog "The Volokh Conspiracy". He is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and is an academic affiliate at the law firm Mayer Brown. Wikipedia.


His opinion about the term of art, ‘hate speech'....is there such a thing, or simply one more lie that Liberals buy like it was on sale?




“… a piece published at the Washington Post:

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?”

But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.


The 1st Amendment protects all speech, but there is no doubt the left is increasingly comfortable with limiting this. Hillary Clinton has said that overturning Citizens United is a priority for her if elected President. That decision found that a film critical of Hillary could be shown on TV prior to an election. Hillary says she would support a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. This week, she added that opposition to the case would be a litmus test for any Supreme Court Justices she would appoint.

A majority of Democrats already support limiting free speech. Imposing new limits to speech as a matter of law is already on the left’s agenda.”
Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech | Breitbart





Whether it is Communism or Nazism, whether Angela Merkel or Chris Cuomo, the collectivists are the enemies if America and of freedom.

And if you vote to support the Democrat Party….you are, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Targeting Free Speech

“Incredibly, the Democrats' disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. Party leaders are openly pushing to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints.

In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton said: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment."

Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests would be to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment. A couple years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.



Meanwhile, a YouGov poll taken last May found that a majority of Democrats said they support government limits on what they consider to be "hate speech." Only 26% of Democrats said they opposed such limits.
In California, Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questions the "consensus" on climate change.
And Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee in March that she has discussed with her colleagues the possibility of pursuing civil actions against "climate change deniers."



Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama has repeatedly complained about the "messy" process the Constitution's co-equal branches created, and has several times acted as though the Constitution's limits on the president's authority simply don't apply to him.

But the fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/green-new-deal-93-trillion-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/



So, Angela Merkel is not alone in her disdain for free speech; she has company in the Democrat Party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. “Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intendedthe First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.” Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



Hussein put an anti-first amendment Justice on our Supreme Court.....


...and you can vote Democrat?????