Posted on 04/24/2017 9:21:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean offered his flawed interpretation of the First Amendment last week during the Ann Coulter-Berkeley controversy. The school cancelled Coulter's scheduled appearance on campus after they decided the conservative speaker would create too dangerous of an environment. They then re-invited her, but rescheduled her speech. Coulter insists she's coming on the original date - this Thursday.
Between all the back and forth, Dean defended Berkeley's initial decision to nix the speech, tweeting that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution. Putting aside the fact that Dean thinks conservatism amounts to hate speech, Guy explained just how wrong Dean was - not to mention hypocritical. Dean once joked that Trump peddled drugs.
Instead of admitting his mistake and saving face, Dean is doubling down on his ridiculous tweet.
"It's actually true" the First Amendment does not protect hate speech, he said on MSNBC Sunday.
Howard Dean on Ann Coulter: 'It's actually true' the First Amendment doesn’t protect "hate speech" pic.twitter.com/N7s0HTOOdI— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 23, 2017
Sigh.
Again, this constitutional scholar was a governor and ran for president.
“No one should be censored.”
But everyone should be held accountable.
HD is a DB that has a face that wants to be punched. ‘Nuf said.
If Dean types try to interfere with First Amendment rights
then they should be quickly introduced to our Second Amendment rights
The right of Free Speech does not include a right to an audience....
Keep on talking Howard. Keep spewing your hate talk.
You are like Pelosi and Schumer. The more the 3 of you talk and complain, the more voters you lose.
Who is Guy?
Amen!
Liberals can whine, lie and yell all they want to. We don’t have to listen to them nor read what they write/publish.
We don’t have to watch Faux, ABCNNBCBS nor read the Compost/NyLA Slimes, any left wing fishwrap or magazine to find out what our President is saying or doing.
All we have to do is to log on to Free Republic and read the real news and avoid the fake news from the sites mentioned above.
Finally, our president and his people can reach us daily via emails, tweets, and info on the Whitehouse site. (See my tagline)
Thank you.
Thank you. I did not think it does.
I’ve come to the following conclusion about what you must be to be “a liberal”. Three things:
- Easily mislead by false statistics because they play to your emotions
- Selfish, solutions always fall at the feet of somebody else, either the “rich” or the “government” but never the liberal proposing the solution.
- An atheist. This is the one that leads to all kinds of confusion, including that “Christianity is as bad as Islam”.
Put all three together and you get somebody that means well but is completely disconnected with reality and what works....a gullible bleeding heart that doesn’t understand economics and is devoid of contrasting various ethics systems. It’s a nightmare.
They have nothing to do with classic liberalism, I refuse to call them “liberals”. They are “progressives” but considering their positions I can only label them “regressives” because that’s, ultimately, where their policies would take us. They reject everything that has been woven into our fabric of society and enabled us to reach where we are (which is Judeo-Christian ethics).
I've put a lot of thought into that too, and you pretty much nailed it.
The one explanation I'd differ with is "Selfish". Rest assured, they're some of the most selfish people in the world, but I believe it's because they're ready to overlook all the suffering and inequity they cause because the feeling of being virtuous (and thought of as virtuous) is more important than anything else in the world.
Has hate crime legislation been challenged yet on the basis that you cannot add an extra penalty to a crime based on some objectionable thing a perp says?
Until that’s challenged and overturned, then in practice he’s somewhat right, although I’d put it differently:
Hate speech IS protected by the first amendment
However ...
Hate speech IS NOT BEING protected by the first amendment ... as it should be.
I agree. What I mean is that it is a subconscious selfishness. They’re not intending to be but don’t realize their solutions are always a problem for somebody else to enable.
...and yes, the whole “virtue signalling” is the bleeding heart. It’s all window dressing but has no substance.
Free education!
Free healthcare!
Free housing!
Free meals!
Guaranteed allowance!
No war!
LGBT love!
Yay for me! I’m such a great person!! /s
To say it’s shallow would be the understatement of all history, yet they actually believe it all. Like abortion, the feminists love to talk of “choice”. They’re really not in general, they’re only talking about THEIR choice. Yet they had a choice to have sex or not, be married or not, use protection or not, give up for adoption or not, etc. - however, NOBODY else should have a choice. Certainly not the unborn child and not the father (financially). It’s pure selfishness.
You give them far too much. They do not mean well.
They want to be in charge.
You’ve just described a prison.
Liberal thugs like Howard Dean, of course.
"Hate Speech" is a lie. It is not about hate. It is specifically about oppressing conservative speech.
Just as "tolerance" is about the total destruction of Western Culture and Christianity.
These people are violent Marxists. They change their labels, but brutality remains.
Yes, they are!
No.
You are free to turn off the TV, hit mute or not attend a rally.
That is the other half.
They get upset as the idea that someone may be thinking much less saying something they do not approve of or have an answer for.
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.