Posted on 05/06/2015 9:30:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This guy is a professional journalist. And a Yale grad. And a law-school grad.
But let’s be fair. If you polled the media, how many of them would agree? Don’t stomp Cuomo just because he’s bold enough to say what the rest are thinking.
For once I’m with Glenn Greenwald. The funniest part of this, at least for law nerds, is Cuomo suggesting that a “hate speech” exception might be found in the text of the First Amendment itself rather than a Supreme Court case somewhere. You remember how James Madison went on and on about hate speech in the Federalist Papers, don’t you? Know your history, haters.
There is, of course, no “hate speech” exception to the Free Speech Clause. But I’m going to give Cuomo some credit for anticipating the inevitable liberal attempt to carve one out by using a troubling bit of case law detritus that I’ve grumbled about before. Here’s how he replied when people on Twitter began asking him if he’s a moron.
Ah yes, the “Chaplinsky test,” a.k.a. the “fighting words” doctrine. He’s eating crap from righties and lefties alike as I write this for reading too much into what the Chaplinsky decision allows. That’s the case, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1942, that says the First Amendment doesn’t protect words “which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Over time federal courts have narrowed that ruling to make clear that it only applies, in Ken White’s words, to “face-to-face insults that would provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person.” In other words, says Instapundit, a “personal invitation to brawl.” All true, but it’s painfully easy to move from that standard to a standard in which “hateful” speech qualifies as “fighting words” whether or not it’s uttered face to face, whether or not the violent reaction is immediate, and whether or not a reasonable person from the “majority” might object to it. Pam Geller’s Mohammed cartoon contest is a perfect example. That was a private event, not a face-to-face demonstration in front of a group of Muslims; most Americans would say that cartoons of any figure, no matter how insulting, don’t justify a violent response; and there was no reason to expect that the violent reaction, if it came, would be an immediate attack on the event itself rather than a plot to target Geller or her allies later. It should fail the Chaplinsky test easily. (And Cuomo, in fairness, isn’t saying otherwise.)
But if the point of Chaplinsky is to keep the peace by banning certain words that are likely to inspire a violent reaction, then of course the cartoon contest qualifies as “fighting words.” Even Geller’s critics, like Noah Feldman, acknowledge that there’s a nonzero risk of bombs going off around someone who mocks “the prophet.” In the modern world, where we’re all basically face to face on the Internet, communicating your insult in person seems like a formalistic, archaic requirement. And of course, as any good progressive would tell you, it’s horrible chauvinism by a privileged class to think insulting Mohammed should be permissible simply because America’s non-Muslim majority doesn’t find it offensive. Again: If keeping the peace is the touchstone here then naturally we should ban insults to Mohammed. It’s the very first thing we should ban, in fact, because there’s no form of speech nowadays that’s more likely to lead to violence than that. And that’s why Chaplinsky is such a pernicious, awful decision: It rewards violence by punishing the speaker instead of the guy who wants to punch him in the face. In fact, if you re-read the majority opinion, you’ll see that the case didn’t actually involve an invitation to fight or any sort of direct threat of physical violence. The words that got Chaplinsky thrown in jail, that were unworthy of constitutional protection, were him telling a local cop, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” He was guilty, in other words, of being insulting. You don’t think progressives, given a few decades of sustained effort to influence the consensus about the First Amendment among left-wing judges, couldn’t build on that precedent to treat all “hate speech” as fighting words? Remember:
America needs to be a “safe space” for all its citizens. Equality demands no less. And no one can be truly safe where “hate” is free to flourish. Right?
Christians of all stripes need to get some tough hides. Too often, we, and that includes myself, cringe when confronted and stay silent.
Funny. It always (and only) seems to protect hate speech aimed at the sensitivities of traditional Americans.
Evil acts evil. Funny huh.
I would suggest it’s a matter of practice. Get your gospel faith down square, say it from the heart. The bible doesn’t say never get angry. It says be angry but do not sin. Anything good you do will reflect the goodness of God in some manner.
In the Garden, God furnished Adam and Eve with leather garments in place of their attempted dress of fig leaves. That is recorded as a literal event, but that seems to have metaphorical meaning on top of that (that is often true of biblical events).
Grace is of mega importance in this picture. Grace means you don’t have to get everything perfect in order to make a telling point. Stop expecting perfection on earth, start expecting progress.
Not sure what that was supposed to go to (I got a Not Found) but this is no longer a day where the “enemy” is conveniently outside. When he’s your next best buddy, it’s harder to condemn standing up for his cause.
Its not Cuomo’s fault, he comes from a long line of morons..must be genetic
The old pillars have rotted.
What to do, but build new pillars. Crying over spilt milk doesn’t help anything.
Remember how liberal logic works..having a Piss On Christ day and mocking Mormons is A OK, but having a cartoon about Mohammed is considered hate speech
RE: Its not Cuomo’s fault, he comes from a long line of morons..must be genetic
I wonder if Andrew Cuomo believes the same thing he does....
They have no core principles,
only core agendas.
The edifice has lost its reliance upon a larger framework of absolute truth. The need for such a framework was so apparent, and one was so handy to early America (those who came for the sake of religious freedom brought the Judeo-Christian bible along with them), that it was accepted.
Well, this is causing the edifice to crumble.
Cuomo is not literally stupid as in moronic — he is foolish enough to fail to notice this existential question.
Which largely seems to be that whatever the traditional principles used to be, now we HAAAAAAAAATE them.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. That is, until it is.
ping
Muslims are not rational people.
That was a rather gross case. And it did depend on a clear idea of who’s an enemy.
The gospel will cut through this Gordian knot with the uncomfortable revelation that we are ALL the enemy, but the One we’ve been fighting has offered a gracious truce beyond our possible imagination.
This is not an “ism.” It has some elements of religion but goes beyond where religion goes (with religion you are polishing up something that is considered fundamentally okay). Modern political conservatism does not embrace the mercy side very well. Liberalism has attempted to do that, but they have a silly putty “God” with no standards so nothing definite can ever be produced.
Let’s guess who will decide what is hate speech and what is not.
Pray America is waking
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.