since9
Campaign Veteran
Supreme Court Unanimously Reaffirms: There is no "hate speech" exception to 1A
Article.
OUTSTANDING!!!
The implications of this are HUGE:
1. There is NO SUCH THING as "hate speech." Specifically, "[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” " - Justice Samuel Alito, for four justices.
More to the point: "A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." - Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, for four justices.
Finally, the justices made it clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.
This means...
2. Universities may not exclude speakers because of their viewpoints.
3. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "political correctness." A pre-hiring "culture fit" is one thing, but employers cannot fire you (or even treat you differently) simply because your beliefs disagree with theirs.
THIS IS AMERICA!!! This is what I spent my life fighting to support and defend.
Now, having said that, there is a place and time for various forms of speech.
For example, shouting "Fire!" in a non-empty movie theater that's not on fire remains prohibited. Interrupting either a volunteer or paid guest speaker at a university remains prohibited. Disrupting church service, an Elks Lodge meeting, etc. Whether the venue is public or private doesn't make a difference. What makes a difference is precisely the same thing enforced in Congress today: Whoever has the floor may speak. Whoever does not have the floor can either keep to themselves or they will be forcibly ejected from the venue.
Article.
OUTSTANDING!!!
The implications of this are HUGE:
1. There is NO SUCH THING as "hate speech." Specifically, "[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” " - Justice Samuel Alito, for four justices.
More to the point: "A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." - Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, for four justices.
Finally, the justices made it clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions.
This means...
2. Universities may not exclude speakers because of their viewpoints.
3. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "political correctness." A pre-hiring "culture fit" is one thing, but employers cannot fire you (or even treat you differently) simply because your beliefs disagree with theirs.
THIS IS AMERICA!!! This is what I spent my life fighting to support and defend.
Now, having said that, there is a place and time for various forms of speech.
For example, shouting "Fire!" in a non-empty movie theater that's not on fire remains prohibited. Interrupting either a volunteer or paid guest speaker at a university remains prohibited. Disrupting church service, an Elks Lodge meeting, etc. Whether the venue is public or private doesn't make a difference. What makes a difference is precisely the same thing enforced in Congress today: Whoever has the floor may speak. Whoever does not have the floor can either keep to themselves or they will be forcibly ejected from the venue.
Last edited: