Posted on 04/21/2017 4:36:51 AM PDT by C19fan
Former Vermont governor and Democratic National Comittee chairman Howard Dean called out conservative pundit Ann Coulter on Twitter. Dean said, "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
:: canceled do to safety concerns ::
“Do too (sometimes ‘DooToo’ and not to be confused with ‘DogDoo’) is the grammatical relative of “DindooNuffin”.
What kills me is that these people think that what one person says has a real impact on other people. One can choose to listen, and agree; listen and disagree; or just walk away.
If Ann Coulter was placing electrodes on the genitals of her audience and shocking them if they disagree, I would think that would be a problem. But that is not happening.
If you don’t like what someone is saying, argue. Not shout down. But argue. Or just walk away.
Thats what I do every time I hard Howard Dean starting to talk.
The left says this to justify trashing normal people who speak out against the hate and destruction caused by m*slims in the world.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the first amendment.
What a dumb Doctor.
What is the old saying...."History always repeats itself"???
Dean is CORRECT - Hate Speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment, but political speech is.
The difference is the definition of Hate Speech.
In Europe, Hate Speech is any discussion that might make selected ‘sensitive’ groups feel uncomfortable. Obviously the big group is Muslims, and to a smaller extent, all immigrants. This definition ‘evolved’ over the decades as Muslims became a political force. 70 years ago, they were fair game - now if you say their food is too spicy, it’s time to lawyer-up.
In the US, thanks to the First Amendment, Hate Speech is ONLY defined as speech which directly incites violence, such as “go out there and kill every n-word you can find”. Debating immigration, calling immigrants (or a subset, either way) criminals, saying you want to deport all Illegals, is PERFECTLY FINE in this country, still (somehow), with the assumption that the political process will settle things.
Needless to say, the Left here needs to CRIMINALIZE political speech they disagree with, and came really, really, close to having the judges in place to do just that. Why? Because they otherwise cannot achieve power - and once solidly in power, with their judges, we will never be permitted to debate major issues again, just as in Europe. We must NEVER forget that, even if Trump talks about women’s pussies once in a while.
Well the race to the left is on and here comes Dean up the back stretch.
Waters is a going to the inside.
They have to keep their base all “whacko” or they start losing money. It’s his turn.
Next week it will be someone else.
So tell me Mr. Dean, just who gets to decide what is or isn't "hate speech?" Because they become the de facto censors of all speech.
Howard, {SMH} are you really that stupid and short-sighted? Or are you just carrying water for the left's liberal fascist agenda?
Your being two picky.
>>>The FF intended such issues as insulting or inflammatory speech to be handled at street level with bloodied fists as deemed necessary.>>>
Sounds like a good idea to me. I got dibbs on most of the fools at CNN.
Does this phony think chanting killing cops is hate speech?
Under the smiley face of a liberal is a fascist.
.....................................................
Well said.
Well, whattyaknow.
To liberals, the Constitution says whatever they want it to say.
The communist left hates our Bill of Rights. They bow to government. Dean is just another useful idiot.
Howard Dean is a liberal dumb ass...
Oh’ noes...I violated the first amendment.../ S
You would think Dean would actually know what the first amendment means and how it is applied..
.Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "hate speech" can be defined, and that Ann Coulter uses it.
We can then look at the Founders and how they used "hate speech" back in the day...for if the Founders did it and it wasn't struck down, I'd say it must be Constitutional.
Considerthe election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." . In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
No lawsuits, no snowflakes, and we all survived. So, again...um, no.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.