Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Media, Politics

Conservative Dutch Politician Geert Wilders Convicted For Hate Speech

We have previously discussed the increasing criminalization of speech. Dutch far-right politician Geert Wilders has been the focused of another of these past cases, which I have criticized as undermining free speech values. Now Wilders has been convicted of hate speech and inciting racial discrimination for espousing his far right views. One does not have to agree with Wilders — and many vehemently condemn his views — to see the implications of the criminalization of speech in Europe.


Wilders has advocated outlawing the Koran in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He also referred to Mohammed as “the devil.” However, past prosecutions have resulted in acquittal. Now, however, he has been found guilty though Presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said the court would not impose a sentence because the conviction was punishment enough for a democratically elected lawmaker. It could be, which is precisely the problem. The clear message is that certain political views are now criminal with the intent to chill such speech. It is likely that a wider array of speech is likely to be similarly chilled as people try to avoid any criminal charge.

Wilders have many critics, which is not surprising for a politicians. Some 6,500 official complaints were filed after Wilders led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.” The crowd chanted “fewer, fewer.” The sentiments are expressed are not significantly different from rallies during this presidential election, including Trump rallies. Many objected to the language of campaign but no one was seriously arguing that it should be charged as a crime. Like Donald Trump, Wilders clarifies his comments that he was speaking of a subset of criminal actors not all Moroccans. However, Steenhuis said “It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards. The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work . . . The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

The case, which has taken 20 months to reach a verdict, comes three months before Dutch general elections and Wilders’ PVV is currently leading in some polls.

Michiel Pestman, lawyer for some of the complainants who helped bring the case, said: “There is a debate in the Netherlands about whether this has given Wilders free publicity, but he has to pay his lawyers. It’s a unique decision. This is the first time that a court has said that minorities need special protection and even a politician should be very careful about what he says.”

The thousands of people who filed complaints should direct their actions to defeating Wilder in the court of public opinion — not seek to silence someone with whom they disagree through the criminal justice system. Lucien Nix, a solicitor for the council of Moroccan mosques in Holland is quoted as saying “The Netherlands can take a deep breath of relief. Moroccan Dutch people have felt robbed of their dignity and a heightened sense of discrimination. We have waited for this for a long time.” Nix is describing a true Faustian bargain. In exchange for silencing one person who Nix finds offensive, the Dutch just lost a significant level of protection for free speech.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).

This is the latest example of how free speech is now deemed an existential threat rather than a inviolate right in Western Civilization.

What do you think?

115 thoughts on “Conservative Dutch Politician Geert Wilders Convicted For Hate Speech”

  1. Issac, Paul is right . Of all the people who have posted on this site over the past couple of years you seem to be the one who really has a most hateful obsession with what you don’t agree with. I wasn’t a big fan of President Obama, but I don’t think I obsessed over him like you do over President elect Trump. I hope you’re getting professional help. I really think you need it. Best wishes!

    1. issac, I’ve got a Secret Santa gift bag for you. It has in it a red “Make America Great Again” trucker hat, a “Trump is My President” bright red t-shirt, and an “All Aboard the Trump Train” bumper sticker. I hope you like it. Merry Christmas.

      1. lee – that is very thoughtful of you. I am sure that Issac will appreciate the gifts.

      2. Congratulations. You just committed a hate crime against Issac. Where is the $PLC when we need them. You need to be outed!

  2. There are two extremes, one on the left and one on the right. Profound, I know. My intelligence sometimes amazes myself. But wait. There’s more. I will dazzle you with more brilliance.

    On the left the extremes are anti-human radical environmentalists, anti-human abortion fanatics, anti-family feminist extremists, anti-white black racists, anti-heterosexual homosexual activists, and adults suffering from infantilism who think all their wants and needs ought to be provided by leeching off somebody else’s labor. This coalition is now the mainstream of the Democrat Party.

    On the extreme right there are normal and sane people. This is the coalition that makes up the Republican Party.

    Trump is a pooh-pooh head.

    1. If you can get off your high horse for a moment, you will see the stew separate, and the real oligarchy is emerging. It wants it’s war. Repubs are starting to jump ship to support the bill to incriminate Russia. It’s a 3-party party now, Trump, Trump Repubs, and Democrats.

      1. Seriously, McConnell is still in the bag for Trump.He picked his wife for a cabinet post. It is an insider’s game ya know.

        1. Maybe for now, we’ll have to see which way the wind blows. The forces seem to be too great. Looks like Obama got the word to move things along, so at the very least they want to hand Trump a world crisis. Sides will have to be chosen sooner or later.

          The whole hate speech thing is just a subset of this larger picture.

      2. Dr. Rand Paul
        (@RandPaul)
        Rand Paul: “I’m an automatic ‘No’” on John Bolton – Rare rare.us/story/rand-paul… Looks like Rand Paul is not falling in line either. Good for him.

    2. issac – at this point I am going to suggest counseling for your obsession with Trump. You are going to make yourself sick.

      1. Thanks for the advise, Paul. However, I am smarter than the counselors. If I visit a counselor I will have to straighten them out. I’d rather be here straightening you out.

        Trump is a pooh-pooh head.

    3. There are two extremes but they are not the left and the right as you state. They are the weaponized government on the progressive extreme and limited government on the classical liberal extreme. The former would have you believe principles are amendable through positive law and the latter believes that natural law is the foundation on which positive law shall not infringe.

      Time will tell if this election cycle is a repudiation of, or merely a power shift within, the progressive idea.

        1. Thank you slohrss. “We may need new terms to explain the situation.” Isn’t that always the case? Keep the electorate’s heads spinning by repackaging old ideas with fresh terminology.

  3. This guilty verdict is the shot that starts the race. The genie is now out of the bottle. The movement has a real figurehead right now (maybe not martyr status yet, but there is time). As people do, they’ll feel the conviction all the same and will be more resolute in their ideals. As has been noted before here, the consensus is that the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to come back. Change is is coming. There’s no stopping it now.

  4. There needs to be an education movement that reinforces the separation between natural rights and state. Our unalienable rights should be a “no go” zone for the political class and yet they are encouraged to chip around the edges by their less than enlightened constituencies. One would think the “nuclear option” rule change in the Senate would now be a wake up call that principles over politics really does matter. But it won’t. These are lessons lost on a couple of generations of Americans whose worldview of government has no connection with our founding.

    Truly pathetic.

    1. The Senate has idiot parliamentary rules, and has had such rules for two centuries. They were made even worse in the 1970s. There’s no point in equating core immunities, which weren’t much questioned in any occidental country a generation ago, with maintaining bad parliamentary practice.

  5. Well, this is the legal and academic culture of our time. The legislatures could repair this, but they don’t.

  6. What’s grossly amusing is that the ‘human rights’ NGOs (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House) slept through his trial and, bar Freedom House, slept through his 2012 trial as well. Freedom House blandly remarked on the trial in 2012, then gave the Netherlands the highest marks for civil liberty. Canada gets the highest marks as well, Mark Steyn’s tangles with the law there notwithstanding.

    Humbugs, all of them.

  7. This willingness to abandon principals is endemic in the political classes.

    I recently watched a WSJ interview with Michael Hayden (head of NSA) in which he mused that further violations of the 4th Amendment would bring few additional benefits and that we should consider violating the 2nd Amendment as a means of enhancing domestic security.

    And nobody called him on it.

    1. Principals seem to be subject to perverse interpretations as is most anything. The second amendment is rarely if ever used in its entirety by ‘gun nuts’. ‘A well regulated Militia…’. is conveniently omitted and the right of ‘everyone’ to go about armed to the teeth using their weapons in place of common sense, decency, and intelligence is the only message on the banner. The absence of the words, ‘Well Regulated’, in gun nut ranting is perhaps all that needs to be said when arguing against the proliferation of a weaponized citizenry.

      The 2nd amendment is not sacred. It is an ‘amendment’, a change, that can and should be changed, or amended. The US is an evolving society. If it weren’t it would not exist today. Evolution is adaptation of potential to the survival of the fittest. Mindless adherence to past dictums leads to extinction.

      The seeds of fascism and tyranny are to be found in the perverse iteration of so called immutable dictums, especially dictums devised hundreds of years ago in circumstances entirely alien from those of today. The first ingredient of a fascist condition is an anchor in the past. This is true of all severely deformed human forces in their extremes: Islam, Christianity, White Supremacism, take your pick.

      1. issac – Arizona has a specific paragraph regulating its well-regulated militia and who belongs to it. Guess what, it is not the National Guard.

      2. It is true that the US has the most guns per capita of any advanced nation, and it is also true that the US has the most gun deaths of any advanced nation. Must be a coincidence!

        1. If you know nothing else about an area, what is the ONE factor to know, and if known will tell you the relative safety (or dangerousness) of an area? Poverty rate? Gun ownership?

          That ONE factor is demographic. An areas safety or lack thereof can be roughly determined by knowing the racial makeup of who lives there. If NYC were entirely Caucasian, the murder rate would be 95% less than it is now. I suggest you read the “Color of Crime” report which can be downloaded from American Renaissance.

          1. So I suppose a good strategy to eliminate crime would just be to shoot or at least lock up all black people ….

            1. I did not say that, you did!

              But if you are like most liberals, you talk about diversity while sending your kids to a private school and living in an upper middle class neighborhood.

              Most liberals are absolutely phoney.

  8. It’s a double edged sword, this freedom of speech. Turley only knows how to use the blade in one direction. It is getting quite dull.

      1. Your incapacity to tell the difference between Wilders and a neo-Nazi is immaterial. Stupidity should not inform the law.

        1. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.589393“A Jewish watchdog group has criticized Dutch right-wing populist politician Geert Wilders for working with ultranationalist parties in other countries that have been labeled as anti-Semitic, such as France’s National Front and Austria’s Freedom Party.

          “He has always said he will not join up with the extreme right but now this is happening,” Dutch News quoted Esther Voet, the director of the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, or CIDI, as saying. “It is a slippery slope”.
          read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.589393 Do you even know what you are talking about?

        2. Absolutely agree with your last sentence. Sadly, though, much too often stupidity does inform the law.

      2. The First Amendment does not exist to protect popular speech. It would be redundant and unnecessary if that were the case.

    3. In 10 years you will support European style “hate speech laws” and do so with a straight face. All while professing support for the 1st Amendment. You just do not have the guts to say so now.

      2. antonio, The Canadian gets a 3 inch erection every time he thinks about Europe. Of course he wants the European speech and thought control laws. The best time of his life was when he lived in France. The guy actually thinks the best BBQ is in France. That tells you all you need to know! He’s a lost cause. Just laugh and realize he is quixotic in his dreams for the US. He hates this country, but won’t leave. That’s curious, don’t you think?

        1. Nick – no one seems to be keeping their promise to leave if Trump were elected. Lena Dunham is still in Sedona taking pics of herself on the porta-potty.

          1. LOL! I know you remember “I’m leaving because of Reagan, Bush, Bush,” before Trump. They’re like those losers still @ a party @ 2AM..they NEVER leave, and they never STFU!

  9. People in the Netherlands do not like that gay French President naming himself “Hollande”. He is bent, he is bent, he is bent all the way.

  11. Next thing to happen in the Nederlanders is someone will be convicted for saying: White Trash.

    1. Don’t hold your breath. Hate speech as in political correctness, generally only goes one way. It protects left wing interests but not the other way around.

  12. “a court has said that minorities need special protection”

    While that is true, courts cannot change human nature. The challenge is that those with limited mental function search for others to whom they can claim superiority. The “others” tend to be the community’s minorities. It might be more effective to give some level of special recognition to those with limited mental function as is generally done for military troops. We could re-characterize all unskilled folks as “the troops”.

    1. What is also interesting to note is that the Netherlands was one of the great slave trading and colonizing nations, along with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, etc. Less than a century ago the Dutch, as a national identity, looked down at their ‘White Man’s Burden’ as less than Dutch, less than White, less than Human. There is a certain correctness of the inhabiting of the former Colonial Powers by those less fortunate, those who were for centuries used like soap, and sometimes made into soap. Of course, Paul, the Dutch didn’t colonize Morocco but the concept remains.

      Now excuse me as I have to take a Trump.

        1. helly, The Canadian’s scatological humor is not even creative. I understand you taking offense. I’m offended by the juvenile, unimaginative nature of it. He’s harmless and laughable.

  13. Back in the late 1920s, should Hitler’s speech have been suppressed? Look what happened when it wasn’t. How much should bigotry be protected?

    1. Humans think they are better than dogs, cats, or any other creature. A human is a bigot. My name is Mister Bigit and I am here with the sh__.

    2. Hitler’s speech WAS suppressed back then. After the Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazi party newspaper was banned by the German government. That was one of the things that got the Nazis widespread public knowledge and support. Censorship has mountains of dead bodies in its closet, and not a single saved one.

      1. That was one of the things that got the Nazis widespread public knowledge and support.

        It wasn’t. The Nazis were a minor sect prior to 1930. It was serial cultural and economic hammer-blows which won them a constituency. Even so, they had the hallmarks of a fad movement. It’s a reasonable inference that had the German establishment held out for a few years longer, the bulk of the Nazis support would have dissipated. The senescent Paul von Hindenberg, scheming pols like Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, and the military high command have something for which to answer in the hereafter.

        1. Toads – Hitler and the Nazis did not get enough seats in the Reichstag until after the Stock Market Crash of 1929. After which the United States recalled the loans they had made to Germany, making Germany destitute again. Hitler had predicted this would happen and when it came true, it swayed a lot of voters his way.

            1. mespo – of course they defaulted, they had spent all the money and they were paying reparations thru 1980. There was no way they were going to be able to do that.

      2. Dustin R – I think I remember Hitler being banned from speaking for 2 years after he got out of jail. He was suppressed.

    3. I am sick and tired of the Hitler comparisons! The 2nd WW has been over for 71 years.

      Didn’t Norman Finklestein use the term “Hitler ad Absurdum”?

      1. I would agree antonio on the grounds it is intellectually lazy. There is a greater point to be made about the threat these regimes are to civil liberties. Framing the argument around Hitler tends to focus attention on the actions of those regimes and not the fundamental principles those regimes dismiss. Very similar to the arguments made on this blog from issac. Issac would want the reader to believe his capacity to put large volumes of words together represent an intellectual purity that shall not be questioned. The reality is he is so deeply entrenched in his anti-republicanism that he believes any opposition to the GOP is a principled one.

        1. I wonder why no one ever says, so and so is the next Stalin, but the Nazi comparison is used and overused to describe some other political figure the others wish to demonize.

          Name calling is not an argument.

          Instead of engaging in intelligent debate, the left loves to smear you, shut you down, prosecute you, if possible, get you fired, etc.

          Who needs special protection to speak on an college campus, a leftist or rightist speaker?

          When was the last liberal speaker shut down and not permitted to speak at a campus event by a groups of conservative students? It almost never, if ever happens.

          I’m sick of hearing how tolerant and open liberals claim to be.

        2. Jay S – as a matter of intellectual curiosity, why no Stalin comparison? His regime was more brutal, he killed more people, yet Hitler get the bad rap.

          1. I think largely because Hitler explicitly laid out exactly what he was going to do in Mein Kampf, and when he got into power and had the chance, he did it. I certainly don’t think Hitler got a “bad rap.”

            Stalin’s terrorism was always behind the scenes, known to relatively few. And there was always Vyshinsky to set up the dirty work, leaving Stalin’s hands seemingly clean. Stalin was certainly more cynical than Hitler.

  14. Let the offended Moroccan immigrants produce statistics that prove they rape less, kill less, steal less, work more, take less government hand-outs, and are not creating no-go zone Islamist ghettos in the Netherlands! Rather than the kill-the-messenger demonization slur, “far right-wing,” I’d argue Wilders to be a fervent free speech advocate… or is that now considered far right-wing?

    What about this new DEUS VOLT affaire at Southern Maine University? How can a simple phrase become a hate crime and the guy who wrote it on a desk become a hate criminal? Yes, graffiti is a crime. But this example points to legal insanity.
    G. Tod Slone, Ed.
    The American Dissident

  15. The left have become fascists over the past few decades. Here in the US, the 1st Amendment is under a full assault from the left. As people tire of their PC, Globalism, etc. and vote them out of office, they are using their last bastion, the courts, to try and control us free thinkers unwilling to comply.

    1. There is enough fascism to go around on both sides. Simply revisit Trump’s campaign and the core stormtrooper support system that got him into the heads of millions of closet fascists. No side is more fascist than the right. They masquerade under their perverse interpretations of what it means to be American. If there ever was a display of fascism harkening back to Germany in the 30’s it was to be found at Trump rallies.

      There are two extremes, one on the left and one on the right. On the left the extremes are to not say bad things about immigrants and other minorities, give everyone the best education for free, give everyone the best medical care without the surcharge of the ‘free enterprise system’, allow women unfettered control over their own bodies, legally recognize unions between two consenting adults with all economic advantages, and so forth and so on.

      On the right the extreme can be found in White Supremacism, the Klu Klax Klan, and other fine American traditions.

      The alt left may be repugnant to some, myself included, however, the alt right is disgustingly unAmerican and can only be explained as being the result of physiological deformities of the brain.

      The answer is in progression, evolution, or whatever other dirty word the angry right can use. The preponderance of examples of that anger by Turley and his mob continues to carry the great legal eagle further away from any official American adoration. Turley on the Supreme Court. I hope not.

      1. Trump will go authoritarian on his court pick rather that libertarian. But who knows, people change their stripes.

        1. Trump is a card carrying opportunist who is one hundred percent megalomaniac. If Trump could have rode a Democratic opportunity to the White House he would have. Trump saw the shambles that is the Republican party and chose to be a Republican because the Democratic way had too much stability in the area of morality and ethics. Republicans host by far the largest number of shallow, mindless, easily energized. Only by aligning himself with the dysfunctional, hypocritical, and imbecilic (Inhofe) Republican party did he have a vehicle for his own self gratification. History illustrates that free enterprise, business, and Wall Street have done better under Democratic administrations. One has only to look at the Reagan recession, the Bush recession, and the Republican obstruction to recovery to understand that when you want to take over you choose the most dysfunctional group, align yourself with them while maintaining a distance, and then do whatever you want. Trump may not want to do that much harm. The question is that given his obsession for winning, garnering power, never being found wrong, and playing with his face; will Trump even know the difference between what is good for his narcissistic ego and America. Trump’s stripes have been there for decades. That he is out for himself and the 1% is as obvious as can be, except to the mindless, shallow, and easily energized. So, all together now, “We’re number one, we’re number one, the one percent.” What a bunch of suckers.

          1. issac – you are going to type yourself into a heart attack if you don’t lighten up.

          2. issac wrote: “will Trump even know the difference between what is good for his narcissistic ego and America” ? I believe he will. Let’s see what he does.

            and my question to you is: Did Obama?

            I don’t think so. And much of the country did not think so. Hence the decimation of the Democrat party under eight years of Obama.

            1. Obama was elected on a platform sincere for change for the better for Americans. He was obstructed relentlessly for eight years by a shamed Republican party. When a political movement results in such a catastrophe that was the Bush administration, 20%=/- approval out the door, it has one option and that is to take the focus off of their inept condition. The Republican party is the most experienced in political and election dirty tricks. Carl Rove illustrates how a worthless entity that was the Three Stooges could get elected and elected again. It was not based on merit but on strategies and machinations that are tools used by anyone. Check out historical applications during the 20th Century, circa 1933 for great examples.

              Obama was a neophyte. Obama was perhaps naive. However, Obama’s shortcomings are the results of well intentioned programs and moves not realized, primarily due to the obstructionist agenda of the Republican party. It worked to a degree. Obstructed Obama moves were advertised to the feeble minded as failed programs. There is no shortage of feeble minded. This set the scene for the outsider to come in and drain the swamp. Trump is draining the swamp and turning it into a resort pool for his pals. Trump will take credit for any positive results of the momentum created by Obama. He is already taking credit for a 50 billion dollar investment by Japan that was started well before he even hit the papers. Trump will also blame his every failure on Obama and others. Trump is a first rate narcissist and that means he cannot admit anything. His integrity is as deep as his phony tan. Read the papers.

              Obama’s approval rating is well over 50%, very high when compared to his predecessors. So, decimated or not, perhaps it’s time for Americans to review the delivery system of their ideologies. As it seems to be unfolding, there is no ideology in the Trump camp other than self gratification.

              1. issac – Obama’s rating is over 50% but each of his program’s rating is in the toilet. Dude, I am really worried about your health. Your paragraphs are losing cohesion and there is no logic behind much of what you say. Why don’t you take a couple of days off and stay away from the news and blogs, and just meditate.

              2. Oh issac, issac, issac…..you wrote: “Obama was elected on a platform sincere for change for the better for Americans. He was obstructed relentlessly…”

                We could easily substitute Trump for Obama in your response (with my additional comments in parens):

                “Trump was elected on a platform sincere for change for the better for Americans. Trump was (and continues to be) obstructed relentlessly…..(by the MSM, establishment Republicans, the DNC, George Soros, Dems, Clinton, etc)”

                issac also wrote: “Trump will also blame his every failure on Obama and others. Trump is a first rate narcissist and that means he cannot admit anything.”

                And here, we can easily substitute Obama for Trump in your response:

                “Obama will also blame his every failure on Bush and others (the Republicans, Fox News, you name it…) Obama is a first rate narcissist and that means he cannot admit anything.

                And, last example….we can easily subsitute Trump for Obama here as well….you wrote:

                “Obama was a neophyte. Obama was perhaps naive. However, Obama’s shortcomings are the results of well intentioned programs and moves not realized, primarily due to the obstructionist agenda of the Republican party.”

                I could easily say, “Trump was a (political) neophyte. Trump was perhaps naive (politically). However, Trump’s shortcomings are the results of well intentioned programs (not yet materialized), primarily due to the obstructionist agenda of the Republican party.”

                So, issac, I truly do not see the difference. In describing your view of Trump, you just described many people’s view of Obama.

      2. Organized Jewry (do not mean every individual person) are among the biggest proponents and supporters of “Hate Speech” laws in Western Europe and Canada, and that is a fact.

            1. “the Jewry, (in some anti-semitic literature) the Jews conceived of as an organized force seeking world domination.”

          2. Not an argument, sir! The question is whether it is true or not. And the answer is “no”.

          3. Not an argument, sir! The question is whether it is true or not, nothing else. And the answer is ‘no’. In fact, I do not, nor have ever had ties to National Socialism.

          1. Typical DNC scam with a paid Soros plant. Or what you should recognize as a fake news clip.

            1. And watch for thousands more paid protesters and DNC plants to be shipped to Washington, DC on inauguration day to further promote the idea that the nation is deeply divided over Trump’s election. The MSM will be all over it. Also known as faked news. Much more discernment and critical thinking is needed to sort through today’s media environment.

              1. I know some women that are going and they definitely are not paid. It will cost them plenty to go. Do you actually think there are not hundreds of thousands of women that are more than willing to protest Trump? The protests will also be held in many cities across the country. Although I won’t be accompanying my friends to Washington, I will be protesting at the state capitol.

  16. Free speech is kind of like free sex. The Netherlands has been playing it straight for a long time. If you do not believe me then go to the Red Light District in Amsterdam. If you take your wife there is a practice of kindly leaving her at the bar while you go next door. Nederlands, Nederlands uber alles!

  17. I think it should be protected speech, however I see the EU and all the European countries clamping down on speech.

  19. Stop calling Geert Wilders truth speech “hate speech.” That is just Progressive BS created by the Leftist swine to promote their anti-liberty, anti-civilization, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-Islam, pro-rapist, pro-crime, anti-freedom, anti-truth agenda, which is enforced by Leftist judges. Geert Wilders is simply telling it exactly like it is and Leftists HATE the truth and they HATE it when they are exposed. I might be tempted to say that the judges were being intellectually dishonest in their legal conclusions, but that wouldn’t be accurate. There’s nothing intellectual about Leftists. They are merely liars masquerading as jurists.

    But here is Geert to tell you in his own words about the Leftist pseudo-judges:

  20. There are serious academicians who advocate hate speech laws in the United States, among them Professor Alexander Tsesis of the University of Chicago Law School.

    The 1st Amendment isn’t going away, it’s just that unpopular speech will be held to be an exception and thus unprotected.

    Don’t worry, sweet, tolerant liberals, you’ll get your nation wide safe spaces!

Comments are closed.