The Trump DOJ goes "woke" and will target free speech.

[Hentenza]

Yes, because it didn’t happen at all, and because they’re the old administration. You are justifying actions now by saying they could have, but didn’t happen, before.

Many on this thread are accusing the new administration of attempting to trample over first amendment rights. I merely compared the attempting to trample of first amendments in the last administration.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Many on this thread are accusing the new administration of attempting to trample over first amendment rights. I merely compared the attempting to trample of first amendments in the last administration.

You said they could have, but didn’t.

This administration has announced they will, and are doing it. You’re saying because the other administration could have done it, this administration can do it, despite the fact the previous administration didn’t do it (which you agreed).

As I said, I guess I can randomly punch somebody in the face, with the defense of “well they could have punched me. Not my fault they didn’t when I did.”

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Many on this thread are accusing the new administration of attempting to trample over first amendment rights.

Yeah, that's a pretty reasonable concern to have when the Attorney General says:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society, [...] We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech -- and that's across the aisle,"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well, I will just say that if she is specifically targeting speech that is intended to incite violence, that is not speech, that is a crime. But if she is going after speech that others find hateful or offensive, I completely disagree with her and it goes against everything Charlie Kirk worked and died for.

I mean, her stated intent is in the OP:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society, [...] We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech -- and that's across the aisle,"

She walked it back after the backlash started, claiming that by "hate speech," she actually mean "violent threats," but I'm sure you'll agree those two terms have very distinct meanings - if "violent threats" is truly what she meant, one wonders why she didn't just say that in the first place. It remains to be seen what, if anything, the DOJ actually does, but just the fact that she said something like that out loud should disturb any American.

 

[Hans Blaster]

South Park is a fictional cartoon. That's the difference.

You mean it wasn't a documentary about real construction paper people?

I've never cared for it, and don't watch it.

I think you were too young for it.

To each their own, eh?

 

[RileyG]

You mean it wasn't a documentary about real construction paper people?

I think you were too young for it.

I’m nearly 30, and am well aware of what it is. Just don’t care for it. That’s all.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I mean, her stated intent is in the OP:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society, [...] We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech -- and that's across the aisle,"

She walked it back after the backlash started, claiming that by "hate speech," she actually mean "violent threats," but I'm sure you'll agree those two terms have very distinct meanings - if "violent threats" is truly what she meant, one wonders why she didn't just say that in the first place. It remains to be seen what, if anything, the DOJ actually does, but just the fact that she said something like that out loud should disturb any American.

I dont believe in hate speech should be outlawed or banned because it opens the door down a slippery slope to banning other speech. So in this case, I do not agree with Bondi. Furthermore, what someone considers to be hateful is subjective to the individual. For heaven's sake, "All Lives Matter" is considered hate speech to some. But just because speech is legally protected, it doesnt mean it is morally right.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I dont believe in hate speech should be outlawed or banned because it opens the door down a slippery slope to banning other speech. So in this case, I do not agree with Bondi. Furthermore, what someone considers to be hateful is subjective to the individual. For heaven's sake, "All Lives Matter" is considered hate speech to some. But just because speech is legally protected, it doesnt mean it is morally right.

Glad to hear that we agree on this.

 

[mark46]

I mean, her stated intent is in the OP:

"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society, [...] We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech -- and that's across the aisle,"

She walked it back after the backlash started, claiming that by "hate speech," she actually mean "violent threats," but I'm sure you'll agree those two terms have very distinct meanings - if "violent threats" is truly what she meant, one wonders why she didn't just say that in the first place. It remains to be seen what, if anything, the DOJ actually does, but just the fact that she said something like that out loud should disturb any American.

Yes, hate speech and inciting violence are very different things indeed. Everyone should object to inciting violence or violent threats.
==========
The question is where we come down on hate speech. Should we allow Nazi marches in Jewish neighborhoods of Cleveland. SHould we fire any block who doesn't believe in MLK Day. Should colleges bar professors from expressing their vile political beliefs or any political beliefs for that matter? Should professors who promote anti-Semitism or racism or socialism be allowed to teach.

Free speech is not at all an easy issue. Few can still strongly hate the content of another and yet fight for his right to speak such vile nonsense.
Colleges have moral clauses or clauses that allow action against those whose actions are unacceptable. Perhaps. we should fight to protect free speech and allow the courts to decide when one is yelling fire in the theater.
========
Democrats are paying very deeply for the cancel culture of the far left, as they should. That does NOT make cancel culture by the far right any more reasonable.
==========
And none of this is a new issue at all. In the 60's when I attended college, many speakers were not allowed to speak at campuses because the majority thought their views hateful.

As students, we dealt with it. There were many discussions on the public square in front of tables advocating for many views that folks disliked. I recall in 1966 when Israelis. Palestinians, Arabs, Persians, Jews, Christians and atheists all argued about the situation in the Middle East right up to the day so many came in their uniforms to say their last good-byes before heading off to the war. We allowed free speech. This is a rarety today.

We even called one our actions the Free Speech Movement.

 

[NxNW]

Libel and defamation is not protected free speech. So no hypocrisy there.

Neither occurred.

 

[mark46]

from wiki

Was the Berkeley Free Speech Movement successful?

The Free Speech Movement, like the anti-apartheid activism that would follow, resulted in victory — a vote by Berkeley's Academic Senate to lift restrictions on the content of speech on campus. The movement went on to inspire students fighting for change across the country.
=======
How many are fighting for free speech today? on the far left? on the far right? libertarians? Republicans? Democrats?

The Gaza War tests us and colleges. Dartmouth has done what all should do. They promote discussions and debate, in the classroom, at events and around the compus.

 

[NxNW]

Democrats are paying very deeply for the cancel culture of the far left, as they should. That does NOT make cancel culture by the far right any more reasonable.

Democrats are not part of the far left, and never have been.

 

[NxNW]

Many on this thread are accusing the new administration of attempting to trample over first amendment rights. I merely compared the attempting to trample of first amendments in the last administration.

The last administration made no such attempt.

 

[mark46]

Democrats are not part of the far left, and never have been.

Do you believe that there of the far left in the US? How many and how do they vote?


The far left has been part of the Democratic Party for a century. I do recall that when Humphrey formed his alliance: The DFL Party (Democrati, Farmer Labor), the Democrats were forced out of the Democratic Party.
=========
Perhaps, this is all a matter of definition. There is indeed a US political spectrum which is less and less useful. There are a signifcant number of those who are at the far left of the political spectrum. The vast, vast, Majority identify as Democrats and vote in Democratic primaries.
=======
Consider the House of Representatives. Should any be considered far left. If not, perhaps I should simply say those in the leftist 20% of American politics. Let us consider a truly evenly divided county, with a shrinking center. We have those on the far right (10%), the 30% right of center, the 20% centrists, the 30% left of center, and the 10% on the far left. And I well understand that the center is moving more and more to the right.

Those on the 10% far left are Democrats. Without their votes, the Democrats would have won many fewer elections. To be more blunt, when they are so dissatisfied with the democrats that they choose to stay home (or vote for a monority 3rd party), Democrats are much more likely to lose.
=======
Just BTW, I do not consider Sanders a member of the far left. He has much, much more in common with the left of center liberals than those of the far left. Actually, he has more in common with the centrists that with the far left.

 

[perplexed]

No government official should be implying the FCC should cancel Kimmel.

 

[NotreDame]

Terroristic verbal threats is not protected speech. Unless you are saying that fake bomb threats and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is now protected? Do you not see the difference?

If you’re gonna refer to a quote from a legal decision, do so correctly.

Yelling “fire” isn’t necessarily illegal. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Schenk v U.S., https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/

Now, your examples do not necessarily constitute as Hate Speech but come within a unprotected class of speech called True Threats.

Bondi unwisely said Hate Speech, which has long enjoyed 1st Amendment protection, as acknowledged by SCOTUS. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), penned by J. Scalia

See also Virginia v Black

VIRGINIA V. BLACK

 

[Hentenza]

Democrats are not part of the far left, and never have been.

And yet the far left runs the Democratic Party.

 

[NotreDame]

So where is this targeting of free speech?

Her use of the phrase “hate speech” is the “targeting of free speech” as “hate speech” is protected speech. The Court has identified specific categories of speech outside of the protective umbrella of the free speech clause: Libel, Slander, True Threats, non-speech/noncontent/nonviewpoint restrictions upon the communcative effects, Incitment.

Bondi is a lawyer, former AG of Florida, AG of the U.S., and its N embarrassment lay people know hate speech is protected speech but she doesn’t.

 

[NxNW]

Do you believe that there of the far left in the US? How many and how do they vote?

The far left didn't vote for Harris, which is why Trump won. They thought she was too conservative with her prosecutorial record.

The far left has been part of the Democratic Party for a century.

Their platform has never been far left.

 

[NxNW]

And yet the far left runs the Democratic Party.

Not at all. Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Obama were all center-left. The far left didn't vote for Harris.