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.
Hes a quack doctor. What does he know about the Constitution except what Liberals misinterpret it as?
No one should be censored.
Ever.
Anywhere.
I would heartily endorse the exuberant use of violent force on anyone who would try to prevent anyone from speaking in public.
Even more than his stupid roar, this should follow him everywhere from now on.
Dean is not fit for any office or leadership role because he does not support the consitution of the united states.
The violent oppression of conservative speech is the ultimate goal.
This idea is slowly growing. We are going to see it more and more
the left’s ultimate goal is a totalitarian society where only they can speak, where any dissent is criminalized and intiidated out of existence.
obviously
You can say that again.
To libs free speech is only for libs. I guess everyone would love a dictator they agree with.
You only say that because you're a Conservative and your ideas stand up to logic and reason and you have concrete examples to back you up.
If you were a liberal, easily suggestible, emotional, with an unbroken record of failure, suffering, and violence, you'd better understand the impulse to silence dissenting viewpoints.
Howard Dean, the MODERN DAY “Dizzy” Dean.
“No one should be censored.
Ever.
Anywhere.
I would heartily endorse the exuberant use of violent force on anyone who would try to prevent anyone from speaking in public.
“
Does that apply to the bikers who are “supposedly on trial” in Waco too? In addition to free speech, there is also the RIGHT to a speedy trial. I guess Texas has problems with the Bill of Rights too.
Pepper spray that commie.
I believe in Free speech, but does that mean I have to listen to what some liberal says?
For example I always mute my TV when some liberal talks on TV and I always muted that arrogant pos former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I am absolutely not interested in what they have to say
Actually, I have several opinions that would get me flamed, if not zotted; but I don’t express them on here.
I don’t mind debate, and I’ve promulgated, in public discourse, some things that friends who agree with me on much would find in error; but FR is private property :-)
I *do* understand the impulse to silence repulsive and harmful viewpoints; I just personally think that it’s better for anybody to be able to be exposed to any viewpoint on anything than for any group, philosophy, government or individual to prevent someone from reading/hearing/seeing ANYTHING.
George Carlin, in a comic bit, once said...
“Somewhere is the world’s worst doctor... and someone has an appointment with him TOMORROW!”
That would easily apply to Howard the Dick.
Howard Dean doubling down on being stupid.
I would put a “THE ONLY GOOD COMMIE IS A DEAD COMMIE” Bumper Sticker on my Car, but it would offend every Democrat that saw it because they would think it was directed toward them.
Democrats hate and fear freedom control is their game.
Exactly! The bigger question is who gets to decide what constitutes hate speech?
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.