[C19fan]

but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.

Aka Hecklers' Veto.

Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance.

As in quoting the Bible on sexual mores.

As I expected the man reeks of elite credentials: Princeton and Oxford educated including Rhodes scholar. The most ironic item is he led the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Now he wants to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

[yesthatjallen]

Richard Stengel: 'I'm a social justice warrior and I don't like to hear ideas that make me feel uncomfortable.'

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

For some time, the Progtard DildoCrats have recognized that the pesky Bill of Rights is getting in the way of their goal of total domination.

For more than 180 years, they are unrelenting in their attacks on the:

First Amendment
Free exercise of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom the press
Right to peaceably assemble
Right to petition for a governmental redress of grievances

Second Amendment
The individual right to keep and bear arms without any infringement, whatsoever

Fourth Amendment
Right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures

Fifth Amendment
Rights to due process, protections against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and protection against unlawful seizures under eminent domain

Sixth Amendment
Rights to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of criminal charges, to compel witnesses to appear in court, and the assistance of counsel

Ninth Amendment
Rights not enumerated in the Constitution retained by the people

Tenth Amendment
Powers reserved to the states and the people

The good news is that they have not yet tried to quarter soldiers in our homes (Third Amendment) and they will forever hold sacrosanct the Seventh Amendment to take care of the lawyers.

However, they can’t wait to violate the Eighth Amendment when it comes time to settle our hash.

We can either protect our Bill of Rights by pursuing unrestricted Lawfare (indictment, arrest, conviction, prison, fines, civil torts, and asset forfeiture) on those who seek to destroy it, or we can lose our nation.

[chesley]

Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

Why wouldn't you want to protect that? It's just pointing out the evil of Islam.

[FLT-bird]

Having lived abroad in 4 European countries where they did not have a first amendment and did not have such robust protections of free speech, I came to the conclusion that the constitution was a great thing, they were worse off for not having the rights that we as Americans enjoy and that I did not want my country to become like theirs.

So-called “hate speech” should absolutely be protected. That’s not because we like it, that’s because we know any government power to restrict it would immediately be abused. What qualifies as “hate”? Who gets to determine that? Why only the categories chosen and not other categories? That choice alone is inherently political.

If you don’t like it WAPO, feel free to move to some other country that allows its citizens’ rights to be infringed like that. I don’t want to be just like everybody else. I’m happy to be an American.

[Savage Beast]

'the First Amendment protects the “thought that we hate,” but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.'

WRONG!

In such a world, freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas is more important than ever!

The "design flaw" is NOT in freedom of speech. It is in tolerating--and thus condoning--the violence.

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Ask any pro-choicer, people peacefully proclaiming that abortion is killing an innocent life is HATE SPEECH.

Your label is not necessarily the truth. What is obscene? Nothing except morals of the bible.

[Bishop_Malachi]

Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance.

____________________________________________________

What you call “Promoting Tolerance”, professor, can easily become tyranny when government compels society to accept, promote, and or endorse degeneracy.

[Wuli]

So called “hateful speech” does not and cannot CAUSE violence any more than can a gun CAUSE murder.

How someone reacts to so called “hate speech” is their own choice, that no one forces them into. If they CHOOSE to react violently, THEY are the cause of the violence. They caused the violence because they chose to. The mere speech of someone did not force them into it.

The authors logic does only one thing. It tries to justify violence.

[Kickass Conservative]

The First Amendment protects Free Speech, not Free Thought.

I assume that’s because The Amazing Kreskin wasn’t Born yet.

Remember, Hate is a Motive, it isn’t a Crime.

[Billthedrill]

...but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.

The author isn't clear how that works in a society wherein everything someone doesn't like is racist, sexist, or homophobic. In fact, it doesn't work.

Let the debate begin.

Apparently Stengel doesn't appreciate the delicious irony of defending the suppression of speech and then calling for an open debate. Wouldn't that be "hate speech"?

In fact the default position of journalists these days appears to be that freedom of speech applies only to them, not to the public at large, who cannot be trusted with such a dangerous thing. Naturally they can, and so by extension deserve to be the arbiters of what is permissible. That deserves the ridicule it's getting.

[dfwgator]

F that Noise!

[piasa]

This anti-constitution little bass turd Stengel has been picked to be on Biden’s staff...

[piasa]

guy’s an author too

[piasa]

This guy also has a connection to Gaza

[piasa]

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
Biden’s New ‘Global Media’ Guy Richard Stengel Supports Limiting Free Speech, Bragged About Being a Propagandist
11/17/2020, 7:07:22 PM · by rustyweiss74 · 15 replies
MenRec ^ | 11/17/20 | Staff
Richard Stengel, new ‘team lead‘ for Joe Biden’s agency for global media, wrote an op-ed last year arguing for free speech restrictions. Stengel, a former MSNBC political analyst until he was named to Biden’s transition team, argued that the First Amendment needed redefining and that “hate speech” should be a crime. “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails,” he wrote. “I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.” ‘Speech that incites hate’ was defined in Stengel’s op-ed by two examples – Burning the Quran,...

Turley Warns: The Biden Transition Team Just Took an Ominous Turn
11/17/2020, 1:44:09 PM · by Kaslin · 28 replies
Townhall.com ^ | November 17, 2020 | Katie Pavlich
Democrat and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley is warning that the Biden transition team has taken an “ominous turn” after former Vice President Joe Biden hired a number of anti-free speech zealots. “For those of us who have been critical of the growing anti-free speech movement in the Democratic Party, the Biden transition team just took an ominous turn. The New York Post reports that Biden tapped Richard Stengel to take the “team lead” position on the US Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,” Turley