"For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.” - Pam Bondi
Seems like she might want to check out an incident of a mob of thousands building a scaffold and shouting to hang the VP at the front door of Congress. Oh wait, she and her boss already pardoned those people. But sure, keep lying to us about the left's calls for assassinations.
Seeing Pam Bondi shill for “hate speech” was so disappointing. Glad she backed off after being almost unanimously condemned for that garbage but more proof she’s not the one for the job.
My confusion is that if the concern is factual accuracy of anything broadcast about politics, then will this open the door to assess other networks and their commitment to accurately portraying current events? I would have thought the Fox News lawsuit would set precedent here that these are "entertainment" programs, and not to be taken seriously.
Then we’d be concerned about who will assess factual accuracy, all that madness of my truth is different from yours, and people making confusion about truth and opinion…
I know you like to be neutral on all issues, but the day may come where tRump doesn’t like something you say and he threatens to destroy you! Yeah, this will never happen, except it’s happening everyday and you should be speaking out against this government for trying to take our rights away!
So if we have the ability to speak freely, how far would I get speaking freely about trump? Not just among friends, but maybe on the internet. That is, if I disagree with his subjects, who include some of my relatives, these don’t count.
Of course, many of trump’s subjects don’t really care, because they’re so secure in their delusions. Delude on folks.
I always think there will be another election. If he takes away that right, and realizes his dream of becoming a dictator, that’s a completely different issue.
Great article and explanation. I may not have all the legal answers, but I do know this — free speech matters because truth matters. And as a Christian living with illness, I’ve learned that God’s Word is where ultimate freedom comes from, even when the world feels loud and broken. Let’s keep praying that our leaders — on every side — would seek wisdom and humility instead of retaliation.
Thank you for this clear explanation!There are two public high school teachers here in Iowa who are under paid suspension for posts about Charlie Kirk.One is in Tama county(the county next to me) and the Times-Republican coverage of the school board meeting was chilling.
"We're gonna get 'them' " . . . are 'they' the Fox news viewers? or are 'they' the people who support diversity, equity and inclusivity? or are 'they' some specific race or religious sect? or are 'they' the _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Where does the presidential behavior, role model and leadership fit into how "they" (us actually) behave?
The implied threat to media companies in order to coerce them into doing the administration's political bidding seems to be coming with promises of removing guardrails which have served to control media monopolies. If the administration is really back channeling this deal who is going to be surprised?
Thank-you for a thought provoking article. I have watched, over the last twenty years or so, the definition of "hate speech" be changed to support the political opinions of the party in power. I was not familiar with Mr. Kirk until his assassination and as with the murder of anyone, I find it distressing. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (May his children find some sort of peace. The loss of a parent is a horrible event, ask our Gold Star Families. Hope I haven't upset anyone. Peace be with you.)
With respect to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech in the U.S., it's important to distinguish between the government and private parties. According to the 1st Amendment, the government does not have the right to censor free speech, whether through legal means, "jawboning," or otherwise. This broad right to free speech even allows hate speech in the public sphere (e.g., the famous Skokie, Illinois KKK march case) as long as it's not connected to an imminent threat of violence (a fine line of interpretation to be sure). On the other hand, private entities, such as Facebook, are allowed to have "rules of the road," such as preventing hate speech and disinformation on their platforms. Such rules are not considered to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately many social media networks are no longer imposing rules on hate speech or disinformation which can result in violent activity and a confused and misinformed public. A much-needed change to Section 230 (within the Telecom Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996) would help alleviate this situation.
Thank you for another great article!!! Lord, where did Bondi get her degree from? What an embarrassment. Want to keep the Supreme Court busy? Then become top executive prosecutor without realizing there are such things as con law precedent cases. I will have an ulcer by the time she is gone. Here here for free speech. I did feel the FCC thing was off base because for the FCC to take action someone has to complain....which does not mean the head of the FCC it means some regular person! So thank you for explaining that further that there were no regular people complaining that we know of, just some junkie running the FCC.
Thank you for this explanation of Free Speech. It is helpful to have a non-biased explanation. I worry about the dissemination of lies, however. For example, shouldn’t there be a way to counteract someone in authority from insisting that Covid Vaccines killed more people than the disease did? And shouldn’t the President be held to a higher standard of truth-telling?
Thank you for this column. When I was in high school, out ancient history teacher assigned us to find newspaper clippings that illustrated various “isms.” I thought it was pretty goofy at the time but no more. We no longer have a common vocabulary from whence to support our thoughts.
I think you are correct that as the law stands there is a high bar to get a conviction with respect to threats and incitement to violence. Perhaps the bar should be high for prosecution but should not be so high for law enforcement inquiry or opprobrium by fellow travelers. Many of the school shooters revealed their intentions to friends and relatives. Those who were sociopaths (as compared with psychopaths) may have been diverted by a visit from a uniformed officer or even by articulated disapproval by their peers. Bondi’s statement should be taken as cue for those who believe in free speech but not hate inciting speech to condemn it before it morphs into physical manifestations.
I hope you have misread the wedding cake case. Generally speaking if you have a business open to the public, you cannot discriminate against a customer as Bondi said. There is nothing creative about printing a poster. There is something creative about designing a poster. I recall learning long ago in law school that you could not enforce a contract that compelled a personal service, i.e. if a singer signed a contract to perform some place and then refused because he felt that his performance would endorse views abhorrent to him, he could not be forced to sing but he could have to pay damages for breach of contract. I think creative activity like personal service cannot be compelled but ordinary tasks offered by a business entity are subject to laws forbidding discrimination.
I think you have read Bridges v. Wixon too broadly. Justice Douglas, for the majority, wrote, ”Since Harry Bridges has been ordered deported on a misconstruction of the term "affiliation" as used in the statute and by reason of an unfair hearing on the question of his membership in the Communist party, his detention under the warrant is unlawful. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to consider the larger constitutional questions.” The issue of whether Bridges’s speech in support of communism was sufficient to support deportation was not reached.
We had a discussion about the issue of deportation of or denial of visas to those who come to the U.S. to study at my local central NC Braver Angels. Some felt that anyone on American soil have the full panoply of Constitutional rights. At some point, maybe I will go back to the Federalist Papers and other originalist documents. But, for now, I think that people who come to our country as guests or to study or stay by grace (our failure to enforce our laws) should not have an untrammeled right to make public speech or demonstration on government policies—sort of an American version of Xenia (ancient Greek hospitality.)
Bondi's a corrupt fascist. Her claim that “If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.” is completely and utterly wrong ... opinions about Charlie Kirk is not a protected class.
" I think that people who come to our country as guests or to study or stay by grace (our failure to enforce our laws) should not have an untrammeled right to make public speech or demonstration on government policies"
So what if you think that? The First Amendment gives them that right. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" is not qualified.
I disagree with Charlie. Hate speech DOES exist. Look no further than the WH.
"For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.” - Pam Bondi
Seems like she might want to check out an incident of a mob of thousands building a scaffold and shouting to hang the VP at the front door of Congress. Oh wait, she and her boss already pardoned those people. But sure, keep lying to us about the left's calls for assassinations.
Seeing Pam Bondi shill for “hate speech” was so disappointing. Glad she backed off after being almost unanimously condemned for that garbage but more proof she’s not the one for the job.
My confusion is that if the concern is factual accuracy of anything broadcast about politics, then will this open the door to assess other networks and their commitment to accurately portraying current events? I would have thought the Fox News lawsuit would set precedent here that these are "entertainment" programs, and not to be taken seriously.
Then we’d be concerned about who will assess factual accuracy, all that madness of my truth is different from yours, and people making confusion about truth and opinion…
I know you like to be neutral on all issues, but the day may come where tRump doesn’t like something you say and he threatens to destroy you! Yeah, this will never happen, except it’s happening everyday and you should be speaking out against this government for trying to take our rights away!
Gabe is a pathetic bothsideser. Being neutral is being dishonest.
So if we have the ability to speak freely, how far would I get speaking freely about trump? Not just among friends, but maybe on the internet. That is, if I disagree with his subjects, who include some of my relatives, these don’t count.
Of course, many of trump’s subjects don’t really care, because they’re so secure in their delusions. Delude on folks.
I always think there will be another election. If he takes away that right, and realizes his dream of becoming a dictator, that’s a completely different issue.
Great article and explanation. I may not have all the legal answers, but I do know this — free speech matters because truth matters. And as a Christian living with illness, I’ve learned that God’s Word is where ultimate freedom comes from, even when the world feels loud and broken. Let’s keep praying that our leaders — on every side — would seek wisdom and humility instead of retaliation.
The retaliation is from the White House!
Thank you for this clear explanation!There are two public high school teachers here in Iowa who are under paid suspension for posts about Charlie Kirk.One is in Tama county(the county next to me) and the Times-Republican coverage of the school board meeting was chilling.
"We're gonna get 'them' " . . . are 'they' the Fox news viewers? or are 'they' the people who support diversity, equity and inclusivity? or are 'they' some specific race or religious sect? or are 'they' the _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Where does the presidential behavior, role model and leadership fit into how "they" (us actually) behave?
The implied threat to media companies in order to coerce them into doing the administration's political bidding seems to be coming with promises of removing guardrails which have served to control media monopolies. If the administration is really back channeling this deal who is going to be surprised?
Thank-you for a thought provoking article. I have watched, over the last twenty years or so, the definition of "hate speech" be changed to support the political opinions of the party in power. I was not familiar with Mr. Kirk until his assassination and as with the murder of anyone, I find it distressing. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (May his children find some sort of peace. The loss of a parent is a horrible event, ask our Gold Star Families. Hope I haven't upset anyone. Peace be with you.)
With respect to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech in the U.S., it's important to distinguish between the government and private parties. According to the 1st Amendment, the government does not have the right to censor free speech, whether through legal means, "jawboning," or otherwise. This broad right to free speech even allows hate speech in the public sphere (e.g., the famous Skokie, Illinois KKK march case) as long as it's not connected to an imminent threat of violence (a fine line of interpretation to be sure). On the other hand, private entities, such as Facebook, are allowed to have "rules of the road," such as preventing hate speech and disinformation on their platforms. Such rules are not considered to be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unfortunately many social media networks are no longer imposing rules on hate speech or disinformation which can result in violent activity and a confused and misinformed public. A much-needed change to Section 230 (within the Telecom Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996) would help alleviate this situation.
Thank you for another great article!!! Lord, where did Bondi get her degree from? What an embarrassment. Want to keep the Supreme Court busy? Then become top executive prosecutor without realizing there are such things as con law precedent cases. I will have an ulcer by the time she is gone. Here here for free speech. I did feel the FCC thing was off base because for the FCC to take action someone has to complain....which does not mean the head of the FCC it means some regular person! So thank you for explaining that further that there were no regular people complaining that we know of, just some junkie running the FCC.
A most excellent synthesis of the Free Speech Amendment. Well worth the read, almost like a nice reminder of our rights and limitations.
Thank you for this explanation of Free Speech. It is helpful to have a non-biased explanation. I worry about the dissemination of lies, however. For example, shouldn’t there be a way to counteract someone in authority from insisting that Covid Vaccines killed more people than the disease did? And shouldn’t the President be held to a higher standard of truth-telling?
In an era of fake news and hate speeches, free speech is a bless and a curse
Thank you for this column. When I was in high school, out ancient history teacher assigned us to find newspaper clippings that illustrated various “isms.” I thought it was pretty goofy at the time but no more. We no longer have a common vocabulary from whence to support our thoughts.
I think you are correct that as the law stands there is a high bar to get a conviction with respect to threats and incitement to violence. Perhaps the bar should be high for prosecution but should not be so high for law enforcement inquiry or opprobrium by fellow travelers. Many of the school shooters revealed their intentions to friends and relatives. Those who were sociopaths (as compared with psychopaths) may have been diverted by a visit from a uniformed officer or even by articulated disapproval by their peers. Bondi’s statement should be taken as cue for those who believe in free speech but not hate inciting speech to condemn it before it morphs into physical manifestations.
I hope you have misread the wedding cake case. Generally speaking if you have a business open to the public, you cannot discriminate against a customer as Bondi said. There is nothing creative about printing a poster. There is something creative about designing a poster. I recall learning long ago in law school that you could not enforce a contract that compelled a personal service, i.e. if a singer signed a contract to perform some place and then refused because he felt that his performance would endorse views abhorrent to him, he could not be forced to sing but he could have to pay damages for breach of contract. I think creative activity like personal service cannot be compelled but ordinary tasks offered by a business entity are subject to laws forbidding discrimination.
I think you have read Bridges v. Wixon too broadly. Justice Douglas, for the majority, wrote, ”Since Harry Bridges has been ordered deported on a misconstruction of the term "affiliation" as used in the statute and by reason of an unfair hearing on the question of his membership in the Communist party, his detention under the warrant is unlawful. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to consider the larger constitutional questions.” The issue of whether Bridges’s speech in support of communism was sufficient to support deportation was not reached.
We had a discussion about the issue of deportation of or denial of visas to those who come to the U.S. to study at my local central NC Braver Angels. Some felt that anyone on American soil have the full panoply of Constitutional rights. At some point, maybe I will go back to the Federalist Papers and other originalist documents. But, for now, I think that people who come to our country as guests or to study or stay by grace (our failure to enforce our laws) should not have an untrammeled right to make public speech or demonstration on government policies—sort of an American version of Xenia (ancient Greek hospitality.)
Bondi's a corrupt fascist. Her claim that “If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.” is completely and utterly wrong ... opinions about Charlie Kirk is not a protected class.
" I think that people who come to our country as guests or to study or stay by grace (our failure to enforce our laws) should not have an untrammeled right to make public speech or demonstration on government policies"
So what if you think that? The First Amendment gives them that right. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" is not qualified.