Re: The 1st Amendment Apparently Doesn't Exist in New York Either

On Apr 30, 2024 at 6:17:34 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
 

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?

 More of Effa's standard 'blame the messenger' dodge.
 Notice he doesn't (and can't) refute the fact that the Supreme Court cases
cited by Turley actually exist and the rulings are what they are, so he just
attacks the person citing them. This is one of the classic rhetorical and
logical fallacies, one Effa has wholeheartedly embraced because he thinks it
allows him to win on Usenet on any given day.
 

It took several days for Jonathan Turley to realize that his smoking gun legal theory about Hunter Biden, published in the New York Post, relied on Joe Biden serving as Vice President… in 2018. Fans of linear time might recognize that 2018 was well into the Trump administration and that Joe Biden is not, in fact, Mike Pence.