Princeton op-ed says ‘hate speech’ not protected by 1st Amendment because it’s an ‘action’

College Fix ^ | June 7, 2017 | Dave Huber

[C19fan]

A Princeton University student believes that, the pesky First Amendment notwithstanding, offensive speech should be restricted because it really is … an action.

Comparative literature major Chang Che apparently thinks just because he’s read J.L. Austin’s How To Do Things With Words it should magically apply to a couple of centuries of free speech jurisprudence.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Anyone else ever notice how articles, actions and statements like this are disproportionally foreign?

[A_Former_Democrat]

I never understood the last one........

[Bubba_Leroy]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me ...

...unless you say something that I don’t like, in which case you should be burned at the stake or sent to a re-education camp or something so I don’t have to hear you because freedom of speech means freedom from having to hear speech I don’t like.

[caseinpoint]

So burning the American flag and refusing to stand for the national anthem is not protected expression? Libs want to have it both ways.

[freedumb2003]

>>I never understood the last one........<<

BANG!!
DING!
“OW!!!!”

[MrEdd]

Onomotopia

[jonrick46]

So if it is in rap lyrics, hate speech as well as any other expression, is O.K.:

“My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge
That’ll stab you in the head, whether you’re a fag or lez
Or the homosex, hermaph or a trans-a-vest
Pants or dress, hate fags? The answer’s “yes”
Homophobic? Nah, you’re just heterophobic
Staring at my jeans, watching my gen****s bulging
That’s my motherf****n’ b**ls, you’d better let go of ‘em
They belong in my scrotum, you’ll never get hold of ‘em!”

—Eminem

[A_Former_Democrat]

Bandingo? A Tale of Lust in the Olde South?

Band d drum slowly?

Bang!! D outa here?

The World of Susie Bang Ding Ouch?

I still dont get it

[Renegade]

He should go home and stand in front of a tank!

[Boogieman]

I predict this fool will be on Tucker Carlson’s show making an embarrassment of himself very soon.

[A_Former_Democrat]

You mean like in the Batman TV series?

BANG!!

DING!!

OW!! OUCH!!

[Thibodeaux]

The presses of the over active New York times must be broken into scrap metal

[Little Ray]

The Left will claim that our speech ‘incites violence’ and therefor threatens harm and so it can be regulated or banned.
And liberal judges will support this.
Which is why the make up of the SCOTUS is so important.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

So BLM is illegal?

[rovenstinez]

So would burning a flag...be an action, and therefore prohibited to do so?

[Nifster]

1) he doesn’t understand the constitution

2) Some forms of stupid can’t be fixed

[PeterPrinciple]

He never heard as a kid,

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.

[TChad]

Hate speech is NOT an action.

Hate speech is a vegetable.

Specifically, a rutabaga.

[Sam Gamgee]

It says “speech” unfortunately, which gives this nonsensical wiggle room for the leftist censors to say “you can’t yell fire...blah blah blah”.

[Jim W N]

The Left will lie through their teeth but SCOTUS doesn’t make national law no matter how off the track they are or who is on the bench. The Constitution only gives SCOTUS power to decided INDIVIDUAL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES (U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec 2, Cl 1) and their decision applies only to the parties of the cases and any other case with the same questions of law and fact.

Why has the Right gone from crying bloody murder about judicial activism to meekly acquiescing to SCOTUS making national law?

The Constitution only allows one branch to make national law: the legislative branch of Congress. The Right needs to shape up, stand against this b/s, and educate the American people in every way they can about this. The future of our nation should NEVER depend on the appointment of an unelected life-time tenured Justice who is ONLY empowered to decide on individual cases and controversies.

In the meantime, settled precedent is that “action” speech can only be curbed if it is proven to create an actual IMMINENT physical threat (not attenuated or perceived threat). You might be surprised to learn that the feds have no true constitutional authority regarding the issue of free speech, but if you carefully read the first few amendments, you will see that they are pointed directly at prohibiting the feds.

(The first ten amendments are a confirmation of SOME of the general assumptions of the Constitution as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Nowhere does the Constitution give the feds power to enforce the first ten amendments against anyone, other than the feds themselves to observe their own constitutional limitations.)

We are so far off the rails that we can’t even find our way to get back on track. It will take God’s miracle for us to recover our Free Constitution Republic, but I actually believe God will do that very thing because He is a big God who is very gracious and very good.