Black Lives Matter co-founder says hate speech 'not protected by First Amendment'

americanthinker.com ^ | 8/15/2017 | Rick Moran

[rktman]

Now, now Rick. Apparently, it's not that simple. One would have thought that "....shall NOT be infringed." would be simple too. Guess what.................... "....shall make NO law......" Guess we just ain't that bright to see all the nuances and tonal inflections written therein.

[JMS]

Good now arrest every BLM POS out there since that’s their standard

[A_Former_Democrat]

As my Mom once teasingly said about the family pet “Doesn’t he know what NO means”?

The left doesn’t. NO LAW means, well, NO LAW

NO PERSON means, well, NO PERSON

The left is ignorant, hateful, hypocritical.

Oh yeah, and mentally ill

[Maceman]

Black Leftist Mobs (BLM) don’t matter.

[Boogieman]

Alright, then I find “Black Lives Matter” to be a hateful and offensive statement.

[Da Coyote]

Mr Buttwipe will come to an untimely end.
Caused by his own low IQ idiocy.

[red-dawg]

Pot, meet kettle.

Runs and hides.

[jughandle]

Lol!! If so i guess they’d better keep their mouths shut.

[ColdOne]

This needs to stop right now. At this rate they will tear down all of our history and shut up whitey. Being white will be a hate crime.

[Leaning Right]

> Now, now Rick. Apparently, it’s not that simple. <

You are contradicting a BLM spokesman. To the Left that alone is hate speech.

[butlerweave]

Constitutional Law Professor Obama said so ?

[New Jersey Realist]

Black people were considered property back then!

[rktman]

Oh, for a sec I thought you were referring to the word “simple”. ;-)

[VRWCarea51]

So the arrest of those protesters calling for killing Police will commence immediately?

His stupid should hurt.

[blackdog]

We obviously need new "comprehensive legislation" regarding what one group or person may say or think regarding another group or individual.

Making legislation comprehensive always hides the purpose. It is a term the media just loves.

[al_c]

Hate speech like this ... ?

[The Toll]

Well, he’s an idiot, so?

[Hugh the Scot]

As a matter of fact, “Hate Speech”; politically unpopular, and anti-government speech are pretty much the only types of speech that *are* protected by the first amendment. (disregarding religious speech for the moment...)

The other kinds don’t require protection.

[SandRat]

If “The founders carefully and deliberately defined the First Amendment so that only a village idiot at the time could mistake its meaning. “Congress shall make no law...” is about as clear a statement of intent as can be found in the document.!”, is understood by the SPLC,the ACLU, CAIR the NAACP, as well as the LGBSQ, Pro-abortion, the GREENIEs and The Veggies types, things might get better.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The 1st amendment was not written to protect accepted speech.