The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression. Speech by adults as free citizens does not lose First Amendment protection because it is considered hateful. This is because hate speech in and of itself is protected speech, particularly when spoken by adults on their own time.
The big issue in this case was the government asking for warnings and providing a link to facts about COVID during the pandemic. I would think the Preamble would cover that. “Promote the general welfare” but I’m no constitutional lawyer.
Mostly accurate, but when the hate speech, which is the right wing stock in trade, includes outright lies and literally incites dangerous violence, the government has an obligation to put an end to it.
And if that means censorship, or labels, or warnings that they are lies, so be it. Because if they were true, they would be easily researched and accepted.
When I think of limitations on "speech" three examples come to mind, all of which have fairly well-defined legal descriptions. Beyond these I can't think of any others, -- except when your parent or spouse says "Shut up!"
Incitement to violence is not protected speech, but exactly where the line is, is a thorny question.
I also don't consider it to be a violation of free speech if a private company decides to accompany false statements through its media with a warning that they are false. In fact, a private company has free speech rights of its own and can do whatever it likes. As long as the government is asking rather than telling the private company what to do about speech on its site -- and our government has no power to do anything but ask -- then I don't see where free speech is compromised.
I really enjoy the Snyder commentary since it provides a bit more context outside of what you hear in national sports news. Seems like there could be a good exposé there in the future.
Most people sneer at Congress getting involved in sports. But this was another example of how pressure from lawmakers unearthed a whole bunch of terrible stuff about terrible ways that women were treated by Snyder and his minions. Just awful examples. All I can think is that the GOP doesn't have enough older people around to tell them that the last thing you want to be is on the OTHER side of a football controversy in Washington, D.C. The Redskins were royalty for years. Snyder wasn't just a bad owner, he was a terrible person - and Democrats in the Congress helped reveal that when the NFL was incapable of doing it.
If conservatives didn’t lie, incite violence, smear decent people, and generally spew nazi propaganda, no one would have to stop them.
Hate speech is not free speech, but it’s all the gop has.
The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression. Speech by adults as free citizens does not lose First Amendment protection because it is considered hateful. This is because hate speech in and of itself is protected speech, particularly when spoken by adults on their own time.
The big issue in this case was the government asking for warnings and providing a link to facts about COVID during the pandemic. I would think the Preamble would cover that. “Promote the general welfare” but I’m no constitutional lawyer.
Mostly accurate, but when the hate speech, which is the right wing stock in trade, includes outright lies and literally incites dangerous violence, the government has an obligation to put an end to it.
And if that means censorship, or labels, or warnings that they are lies, so be it. Because if they were true, they would be easily researched and accepted.
When I think of limitations on "speech" three examples come to mind, all of which have fairly well-defined legal descriptions. Beyond these I can't think of any others, -- except when your parent or spouse says "Shut up!"
• Libel
• Slander
• Officially "Classified"
Incitement to violence is not protected speech, but exactly where the line is, is a thorny question.
I also don't consider it to be a violation of free speech if a private company decides to accompany false statements through its media with a warning that they are false. In fact, a private company has free speech rights of its own and can do whatever it likes. As long as the government is asking rather than telling the private company what to do about speech on its site -- and our government has no power to do anything but ask -- then I don't see where free speech is compromised.
I really enjoy the Snyder commentary since it provides a bit more context outside of what you hear in national sports news. Seems like there could be a good exposé there in the future.
Most people sneer at Congress getting involved in sports. But this was another example of how pressure from lawmakers unearthed a whole bunch of terrible stuff about terrible ways that women were treated by Snyder and his minions. Just awful examples. All I can think is that the GOP doesn't have enough older people around to tell them that the last thing you want to be is on the OTHER side of a football controversy in Washington, D.C. The Redskins were royalty for years. Snyder wasn't just a bad owner, he was a terrible person - and Democrats in the Congress helped reveal that when the NFL was incapable of doing it.