Good day all. With the Chaos in Charlottesville, and the rise of the progressive left, have come calls to ban “Hate Speech.” Hate speech is defined as anything that a Proglodyte finds offensive to them. The only thing standing in their way to banning words they don’t like is the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Recently, a case worked it’s way up to the court regarding the refusal by the trademark office to issue a trademark to a musical group called “The Slants. The reasoning was that the word “Slants” is offensive to Asians. Never mind that the group in question was made up of Asians, it was a bad word and the Trademark office refused them.
They sued of course on 1st Amendment grounds. The case was heard by the Court in January 2017, and a ruling was handed down 8-0, (Justice Gorsuch did not hear the case so did not rule on it), that the denial of the Trademark because the word might offend someone was unconstitutional.
The Justices were not impressed with the reasons for banning a word because it wasn’t nice. For instance:
From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
[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.”
There were several other justices who wrote opinions, all backing the 1st Amendment. In an article in the Washington ComPost, Eugene Volokh wrote:
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.
A number of groups that really need to be whacked on the nose with this decision are the Proglodytes backing Antifa, Black Lives, (But no one elses), Matter, Education professionals at all levels, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and a few members of the GOP(e).
I’m on a forum for authors that has a political section set up. Most of the people posting are like myself, heavily armed wingnuts who are militant in our support of the Constitution, the good with the bad. Many of the posters have put their lives on the line, literally as members of the United States Military, and they take their oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, seriously.
We also have a few naturalized citizens, (YAY!!) and a few people coming in from Europe. The former understands the Constitution and, obviously, support it. The latter run the gamut. Some support it and would like to come here, (As long as they do it lawfully, come on in, we have cookies), and others are rather confused by it.
One gentleman, who is Irish and in the Land of Leprechauns, thinks that banning people and groups that spew hate speech is perfectly fine. (He is not some kid. He’s served in Ireland’s forces and I believe is retired now)
Many on the board have been trying to educate him in just how absolute the 1st Amendment is. It isn’t a lot of the drivel we see in what passes for the Mains Stream Media, Here, people are going back and forth in thoughtful manner…mostly.
The person, along with a few dedicated moonbats, can’t seem to grasp just how serious we are regarding the 1st Amendment and free speech. Many of us would like to ban Islam from our shores, (And I’ll admit, I’m one of them), but they also have the 1st Amendment available to protect them as well. (As long as they pray and don’t prey, I can deal with them) The individual in question just doesn’t seem to be able to understand how we Americans can tolerate so called “Hate Speech.”
We support it because of how the British denied the Colonials, (That would be us), the right to speak our minds, and would throw people in jail for doing so. We got so fed up, we rather forcefully invited the British to leave the premises, culminating in a rather vicious screaming match at a place called Yorktown.
When the Constitution was written, it was flawed and the founders knew it. That’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights, (The first 10 amendments), and the first amendment voted on was the one guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly and religion. It was backed up by the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. (We take that one rather seriously as well. It’s meant to give people the tools to defend their rights as a last resort)
The United States Supreme Court has managed to make a hash of things regarding the Constitution, but they have generally upheld the 1st Amendment’s right to speak your mind as absolute. I fully expect the Moonbats to bark and the Proglodytes to scream. They can, it’s their right. They just don’t have any right to stop me from telling them to stuff their opinions where the sun never shines. (Due to cranial blockage)
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]
