Posted on 03/19/2013 8:19:45 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Philadelphia magazine published an article called Being White in Philly, with the subtitle, “Whites, race, class, and the things that never get said.” Apparently the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, thinks there’s not even a constitutional right to say those things; in a letter to the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission, the mayor argues,
While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction.
The implication — which I think is very strong — that the “speech” is indeed unprotected by the First Amendment under the “incitement” exception is absolutely wrong: Under Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana, the speech in the article is clearly protected....
The specific call in the mayor’s letter, which is for the Commission to “conduct an inquiry into the state of racial issues, biases, and attitudes within and among the many communities and neighborhoods in the City of Philadelphia,” and to “consider specifically whether Philadelphia Magazine and the writer, Bob Huber are appropriate for rebuke by the Commission,” is not as troubling — both the mayor and the Commission have the right to express their own views, and indeed it is commonly argued that the proper alternative to suppression of speech is counterspeech. But the Mayor’s rationale wasn’t just, “this speech is constitutionally protected but so is our response.”
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
This “mayors” attitude is that of a member of a conquering class. A conquering class rarely welcomes critical comment by the vanquished; i.e. the Roman never cared what their vanquished believed; but did care to the point of killing if the vanquished raised criticism of the Roman governance. Whites have abdicated their right to govern and must now accept what the new governing class wants and desires. Once the conquest is consolidated whites must accept all that comes with their lower status: i.e. poverty, insult, assault and ignorance. As the Gaul said to the Roman “Woe to the conquered!”
The way to change it is to stop accepting conquered status and stand up to this new self-appointed “ruling class”.
He wants more word control laws to stop the indiscriminate use of assault speech.
I have a bias against poor unwed young women spreading their legs to generate welfare checks. Maybe Nutter should do something about that.
Do you know that Nutter started out as pro business and anti crime?
These statements by him are outrageous and that damn Philly Human Relations Commission should be declared unconstitutional.
Guess we have to be grateful he confirmed openly that whites are second class citizens. There is nothing, absolutely nothing irresponsible about that article. Unless we live in a police state with controlled news.
I’m waiting for a black employee of Philadelphia Magazine to declare that the mag’s publishing of the article created a “hostile work environment” and sues.
What yu said is true enough. However, your advice assumes the existence of a “people”-(a population that feels and acts as a unit. Apparently we no longer are a “people” as we raise no leaders; ape the black over class; spend our days eating, drinking, drugging, copulating, evacuating the bowels, snoring and attending “the games.” We have become victims of our Grandfathers and Fathers success. The subject article and other reports article evidence the truth of what I say.
The mayor of Philly is aptly named.
The writer broke the code of silence. In any publication read by a largely liberal audience, it is impermissible to voice what all to many white people privately think.
The power of political correctness comes from its ability to convince those of "incorrect" opinions that they are in a despised minority. If the "incorrect" are allowed to discover that they are really the majority, that the emperor truly has no clothes, then the power of the radical left is diminished.
I can’t find the “incitement exemption” in my copy of the constitution.
And the republican party would not think of doing anything with this issue, an assault on the First Amendment!
Nutter is openly saying we can control your speech just as we control guns, religion, everything.
What Nutter should be saying is “I’m sorry”.
DemocRATS are very good at a “pick and choose” when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and the rights therein.
bookmark
They need to look into whether an article is the same as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
Next they should look into whether voting, having free thought, freedom of association - all are the same as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
Why stop anywhere, since to begin with a magazine article obviously is NOT anything remotely like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
These are communists and the things they believe are intended to smash America.
Damn it you Republican idiots, stand up for our Liberty!!!!
Just some "common sense" regulations is all.
Nutter reminds me of Squidward from Sponge Bob.
Looks like Mayor Nutter is on the same bus as the muslims with their proposed anti-blasphemy laws. An unholy alliance being formed.
The writer is obviously a white liberal who carries a generous portion of white guilt and he approaches his subject with all the political correctness he can muster.
That the mayor -- or anybody -- would consider the article inflammatory is flat astounding. Apparently, even raising the subject is "going too far".
The affair is an illuminating example of just how far "race relations" have gone into the crapper in Philadelphia -- and, probably, most urban cities in the USA.
The word "hopeless" comes to mind.
Nutter doesn’t seem to be questioning the Constitutional right of speech, but whether or not the publisher should have exercised censorship for reasons of whatever. The publisher is not Constitutionally obliged to published everything that comes across its desk.
Title is bogus.
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.