Posted on 04/16/2021 5:29:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Our rights to open, even crude, dissent are relatively recent—and vulnerable to legislative and judicial crackdowns
We shouldn't have to repeat this: Americans have the right to insult those in charge, from President Biden to a local councilman, and, yes, even an armed policeman. Yet this bedrock right to vent our spleens against officials is now being challenged. A federal appeals court judge on Friday echoed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in calling for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan—the landmark decision permitting "vehement, caustic and … unpleasantly sharp attacks" on government officials. And a year after the protests in Louisville in response to the police killing of Breonna Taylor, Kentucky's senate approved a law criminalizing insults to the police.
If the Kentucky statute makes into law, police could arrest anyone who hurls "offensive or derisive" words at them that tend "to provoke a violent response" from a reasonable person. In other words, cops—who are supposed to de-escalate conflicts, not make them worse—would be invited to throw protestors into the paddy wagon in response to words that anger them. Even if a court later rules the cops were wrong, the voices of dissent would still be silenced.
The statute is so vague and overbroad that it would likely not survive a constitutional challenge, and the attacks on Sullivan are for now confined to dissenting opinions. But historically speaking, these measures are anything but aberrations. In fact, they reveal a key underpinning of centuries of political censorship: Power is fragile, resting on a thin veneer of infallibility as much as force, and authorities often feel compelled to suppress anything that may crack that illusion. The Louisville police can bust into a young woman's home and kill her without being charged, but despite that overwhelming firepower they still need protection against
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
When Hilary screeched that we had a right to disagree with any administration, you just knew she was lying.
.
>>If the Kentucky statute makes into law, police could arrest anyone who hurls “offensive or derisive” words at them that tend “to provoke a violent response” from a reasonable person.
****** your mother and your sister and I hope your ***** kids are hit by a car
These are what are known as “fightin’ words” and provoking a fight is antagonism.
The standard is “violent response from a REASONABLE person”.
There are plenty of miltant POC who’ve lied and used the “He called me ******” defense in their violent videos they upload to socialist networking sites for laughs. And Facebook and others say that those racist beat down videos DON’T VIOLATE THEIR STANDARDS.
Fake news from MSNBC! Who would believe it???
Sullivan vs New York Times needs to be abolished because it allows the media to LIE about public figures with impunity.
Nobody—NOBODY—is attacking Sullivan because it allows people to insult the police.
Sounds good. I’m sure that leftist celebrities and politicians wouldn’t use vexatious defamation suits to silence their critics.
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.