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

In article <v0tika$370i3$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/30/24 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

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=2-6oshw3g6b
xsmwqt160vrgne5i

>
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.

Turley is an idiot. And he reads a calendar about as well as YOU read
English.

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.