Flag Peeing and 1st Amendment Rights: Should This be Legal?

Not a YouTube fan? Watch it here: https://vid.me/xZDX

Advertisements

Tennessee Makes the First Amendment Legal Again

columbia-campus-protest-getty-640x480

Mario Tama/Getty Images

According to this and this, Tennessee is the first state to reinstitute the 1st amendment as it was intended on college campuses!

The new law makes it illegal to shut down conservative speakers or cancel them because administrators don’t agree with them. They also cannot punish professors who speak of conservative topics as long as it is in line with the class subject. Free Speech Zones are no longer allowed, making the entire campus a free speech zone. It disallows viewpoint based discrimination for funds for student groups. And the legal definition of student-on-student harassment must be used instead of the one set up by liberal administrators.

The law also demands campuses use the actual legal definition of student-on-student “harassment” handed down by the Supreme Court, behavior “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

H/T Breitbart

One down, 49 to go! Let’s make freedom legal again!

Read the text of the Campus Free Speech Protection Act.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Claim That ‘Hate Speech’ is Not Protected by 1st Amendment

The case concerned a band called The Slants that was denied copyright protection because their name was deemed offensive:

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.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for four justices:

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.

In a concurring opinion by Samuel Alito, joined by three others, Alito wrote:

[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.”

That last line is a quotation from Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote it in a dissenting opinion in 1928:

Freedom from the thought that we hate is never an easy sell, but without it, we do not have true liberty.

Full article: BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Claim That ‘Hate Speech’ is Not Protected by 1st Amendment | Buck Sexton

Thank you! Seriously, thank you, Supreme Court!

The whole “hate speech isn’t protected under the 1st Amendment” thing always got on my nerves because, let’s face it… anything the left doesn’t like is considered hate speech. The term no longer has a meaning because if it doesn’t agree with their views, it is some phobe, ist, or ism, and therefore hate speech.

Not anymore! Folks, if you don’t like what someone is saying… walk away! Why is this such a hard concept?! If you don’t like speakers, don’t attend their speeches. If you don’t like claims someone is making, debate them. Have debates, have conversations, stop screaming people down, burning buildings down, and generally silencing thought you don’t agree with. If you believe you are right, you should be able to converse freely with someone else without having to silence them by screaming them down, blocking them from speaking, etc. And if you don’t like the name of the band that started this, don’t buy their music! Simple as that!

Kathy Griffin Beheads Donald Trump in Shocking Photo Shoot

According this, this… woman?… has put out a photo shoot of herself beheading Trump. Which, of course, is classy AF.

I normally don’t give a hoot when people do stuff like this. If you want to be a complete fool and show it off to the entire planet, please, be my guest. Part of being in the public eye – and that includes the president – is realizing stuff like this happens and learning to take it for what it is. It’s sickening, yes. But it’s part and parcel of being “free.”

But I won’t say something like, “What would have happened if someone did this with Obama?!” Because we already know. Do you remember the rodeo clown that wore an Obama mask? Why don’t you ask him what would happen, I’m sure he’s got a story for you.

This is, however, exactly what so many people are angry about today. Freedom of speech is preached for by lefties like this haggard bottled red head above, but the only free speech they want is their own. If this is going to be OK, then when it’s done to democrats – no matter their gender, race, etc. – then it’s OK then, too. Sorry, that’s how the Constitution works… it covers everyone, not just you and what you want to hear.

But this woman got exactly what she wanted. We’re talking about her. Something that hasn’t happened in a long time. And that’s really all these people want – attention.

Save

Dem Leadership Looks to Squelch Impeachment Talk

Emphasis mine.

The Hill:

(Rex Features via AP Images)

Democratic leaders have a message for those members of their caucus beating the drum to impeach President Trump: not so fast.

“I would suggest … there needs to be a full investigation first,” Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday. “We need to get to the facts, and let the facts lead where they may.”

In the eyes of several Democrats, however, the facts already lead to impeachment.

[…]

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) spoke out at a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Wednesday morning to highlight the urgency of removing Trump, whom the Democrats increasingly see as a national security liability.

Almost simultaneously, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) took to the House floor to trumpet the impeachment call he’d sounded earlier in the week. He characterized his decision as a “position of conscience.”

Full article: Dem Leadership Looks to Squelch Impeachment Talk

The highlighted area above is everything. I’m sorry, but it is.

The rule of law in the United States is not based off of feelings, no matter how much some of these lefties want it to be. As Ben Shapiro so often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Everything coming out in the media recently has been quotes and things stated by anonymous sources, which is fine. But those aren’t facts. It’s someone else’s recollection, opinion, or feelings with nothing behind them. If it comes out that Trump did, in fact, do something that warrants impeachment, then great! Let’s start the impeachment proceedings. And if anything comes out that says his removal from office is warranted, then great! We can start those proceedings next (for those who don’t know it, impeachment is not removal from office). But you can’t base impeachment on something someone says they sort of recollect seeing in a memo, or hearsay. It has to be actual provable facts that can be presented in a court of law with no room for reasonable doubt.

Impeachment is no light matter. It should not even be discussed until actual facts are presented and reasonable doubt is erased. And so far, we haven’t seen any. All we’ve seen are feelings.

Save

Democratic Rep. Val Demings Tells Facebook Commenter: ‘My First Amendment Right Is Different From Yours’

When a commenter asked Demings if they ever found her stolen handgun and suggested that she be more responsible with her own firearms before talking about gun control for others, Demings offered a peculiar reply:

Screenshot via Facebook

It’s unclear exactly what Demings meant when she said “My First Amendment right is different from yours.” Regardless, several Facebook users responded to her comment:

Screenshot via Facebook

Screenshot via Facebook

Full article: Democratic Rep. Val Demings Tells Facebook Commenter: ‘My First Amendment Right Is Different From Yours’ | Daily Wire

Yeah, I’m with Michael Louis Greenstein on this… how, exactly, are her 1st amendment rights “different” than mine or anyone else’s? Does she think she has a right to more 1st amendment rights? Does she think she gets to decide what is covered by the 1st amendment and what is not? Does she think it only applies to lefties? Most likely the last one there, because the lefties lately seem to believe they are allowed to say whatever they want, but if you disagree with them you can’t speak.

Save

Ann Coulter’s “Hate Speech” IS Protected by the First Amendment

“You have every right to protest and use your speech to counter someone else’s speech. What you don’t have a right to do is silence someone else by using violence or intimidation.”

If you haven’t delved into “The Rubin Report,” I highly suggest you spend some time. He’s a leftie, but he’s a good leftie. He interviews folks he doesn’t agree with, and somehow manages to not call them names, shout them down, or any of that crap. It’s a good, thought provoking channel.