Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ra tv |
On 4/30/24 5:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
In the U.S., politicians have demanded Internet censorship and have even
engaged in it themselves. For example, the Supreme Court will soon hear
Missouri v. Biden, a case in which the federal government coerced social
media
platforms to censor content it disagreed with-- even if the content was
true.
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington
University and free speech advocate who has written extensively on the
issues
of censorship and limitations on speech, has cautioned the U.S. against
adopting European censorship laws that allow governments to stop people from
saying things that governments oppose. Despite what many think, "hate
speech",
which is subjective, is protected both by the Constitution and by Supreme
Court precedent.
He wrote:
"There have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former journalist
and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has insisted that while
"the 1st Amendment protects 'the thought that we hate'... it should not
protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.
In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw."
Actually, it was not a design flaw but the very essence of the Framers' plan
for a free society.
The 1st Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly
stating: '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.'"
He cited Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving "violent speech",
wherein
the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was
deemed as promoting illegal conduct, specifically ruling for the right of
the
Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization."
That ruling led to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
in
1977, where the Court unanimously ruled that the city government could not
constitutionally deny a permit for the American Nazi Party to hold a march
in
the city streets, even in a city populated heavily by Holocaust survivors.
Turley also noted that in the 2011 case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, the
Court
struck down a ban on any symbol that 'arouses anger, alarm or resentment in
others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender, and in Snyder
v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said that "the hateful protests of
Westboro
Baptist Church were protected".
https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/new-york-announces-it-will-take-citizen-surveillance-and-censorship-to-the-next-level/?twclid=2-6oshw3g6bxsmwqt160vrgne5i
Jonathan Turley? Do better. You're a better lawyer than Jonathan
Turley... and what does that say?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.