Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md) is ending 2022 on an ominous note after declaring that “if you espouse hate… you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” The statement is obviously untrue, but it is only the latest example of the eroding support for free speech in Congress and the country at large. It is particularly chilling for one of the nation’s most powerful politicians (sworn to “support and defend the Constitution“) to show either a lack of knowledge or lack of fealty to the First Amendment.
He is not the first Democratic leader to make this clearly erroneous statement about the Constitution. Politicians such as Howard Dean have previously voiced the same view.
The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Indeed, the language was explained most succinctly by Justice Hugo Black in Smith v. California: “I read ‘no law . . . abridging’ to mean no law abridging.”
While the court has distinguished “fighting words,” criminal threats and other narrow categories, it does not bestow the government the open right to strip protection of speech that it deems “hateful.” Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the KKK to speak even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it 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.” Finally in Snyder v. Phelps in 2011, the Court said that the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
Sen. Cardin seems to be channeling the European view of free speech. That is also concerning given the growing anti-free speech movement in the country.
We have been discussing efforts by figures like Hillary Clinton to enlist European countries to force Twitter to restore censorship rules. Unable to rely on corporate censorship or convince users to embrace censorship, Clinton and others are resorting to good old-fashioned state censorship, even asking other countries to censor the speech of American citizens. It is an easy case to make given the long criminalization of speech in countries like France, Germany, and England.
This view is being reinforced on campuses where almost half of students believe, like Sen. Cardin, that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution.
As someone who was raised in a liberal Democratic family in Chicago, I do not know when the party went from being the defender of free speech to its most determined nemesis. However, with demands for censorship and the all-out war on Twitter, the Democratic party seems to have crossed the Rubicon on the First Amendment. That leaves many liberals (particularly classical liberals) and independents in a growing bind.
Many of us view free speech as our defining American right. This coming year is likely to see a further escalation in the fight for free speech from the Supreme Court (in the 303 Creative case) to our campuses. Some college presidents have declared that even “disingenuous” speech is not entitled to protection.
Sen. Cardin is a lawyer but appears to hold an extraconstitutional view of free speech. His view of the First Amendment is not simply flawed but dangerous at a time when we are engaged in an existential fight for free speech.
Turley says, “I do not know when the party went from being the defender of free speech to its most determined nemesis.”
The Democrat party always had two driving forces that coalesced under the banner of protecting our underlying freedoms. Pretending to be classical liberals, the fascist group acted only under the guise of supporting freedom, but that was not their intention.
The fascist group came from similar but different ideologies, including Stalinists, the New Left, anarchists, etc. Their objective was to destroy the cohesiveness of America so they could introduce their versions of Utopia. They used Stalinist / Alinskyite tactics in this quest while walking on the American flag and burning it.
Why do so few people look at history and see what these animals have done? They murdered, plundered, and subjugated billions of people over the world. They make life miserable.
Virtue signaling became a habit for Democrats, and they supported the inhumanity. Greed and stupidity trapped their intellect and forced them to delve into moral relativism.
We are the good guys, and they are the bad ones. We should recognize that loud and clear. After the fall of the Berlin Wall when Gorbachev tried to make their ideology the equivalent of ours. George Bush 1 blinked. We won, and they lost. Their ideology is destructive, but moral relativism inched in, and we equated Socialism (Communism) to what we have here. Virtue signaling is how we fail as a nation. We need to recognize how good our underlying ideology is and proudly realize we won the war.
Nearly 50% of MIT’s faculty voted against the idea of free speech. Wonder what percentage of their nascent student body brain trust supported them as well. George Santayana must be driving the world’s seismographs crazy.
I remember back in 1989 when the Supreme Court upheld flag burning under the First Amendment, conservatives wailed and moaned, but they were wrong. The ACLU rightly noted that if you’re offended by speech, the answer is more speech, not criminalization of speech. Fast forward 33 years and the roles are reversed. Liberals now wail and moan about hate speech. Same answer.
Last night Tulsi interviewed a Cuban who recently arrived in America and is very enthusiastic about living here after having lived in Cuba. She asked what he liked so much about it, the first thing out of his mouth was “freedom of speech.” The First Amendment’s protections need to be defended at all costs; they should never be weakened by bad ideas such as those espoused from the not-so-great senator from the great state of Ohio.
Nice comment, but who is the senator from Ohio? Cardin, to my regret, is a senator from Maryland.
pudnhead: My bad, from then great state of Maryland. He looks like John Glenn (IMO), which is probably what threw me off.
So Maryland crab cake Ben Cardin is now defining hate speech for all Americans ? Seriously ???
As far as the Constitution is concerned there is no such thing as ” Hate Speech”. Unless you are EXPLICITLY calling for violence, you are able to ” insult” others without barriers or repercussions. Again, hurting someone’s feelings is not prohibited. “Hate Speech” is a term used by weak individuals. The government has no business regulating speech. In the private sector there might be punishment for words or actions that are unpopular. Just like there is nothing that is ” Misinformation” or ” Disinformation” as far as practicality. These are made up terms to prevent a counter argument. If you think something is misinformation or disinformation, produce facts that dispute whatever premise is stated.
This regulating of Hate Speech and Misinformation is absolutely Orwellian. I recently re- read 1984. My feeling is that it is not as much fiction as prophetic.
Even explicitly calling for violence is protected speech, so long as you are merely advocating it rather than attempting to whip people up into such a frenzy that they will actually go out and do it immediately just because you said so, without stopping to think about it and decide for themselves whether to do it.
“if you espouse hate… you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” (Cardin, the wannabe tyrant)
If you want to impose censorship, here’s what you do: Colncoct a “law” (“hate speech”) that is not precisely defined, that is intentionally vague, that is open to countless interpretations (depending on the mob’s or a bureaucrat’s whim) — where people cannot know in advance what is and is not permitted speech.
Then, for good measure, you have your law enforcement agencies and bureaucracies enforce by proxy similar, nonobjective speech editcts (such as prohibitions against “misinformation” and “disinformation”).
Then you sit back and watch, as your citizens are too terrified to say anything.
Lack of fealty to the CONSTITUTION, THIS COMING from a man who without fail supports a man who says that the CONSTITUTION is obsolete and should be suspended because he didn’t win as well as his seditious followers. It’s hard to take your seriously as an objective legal scholar.
These debates regarding the protection that the CONSTITUTION provides for lies, fighting words or crying fire in a crowded theater. It’s not anti CONSTITUTION to engage in such debates and consider the context of such speech. We used to do that kind of debate at law school.
“Lack of fealty to the CONSTITUTION, THIS COMING from a man who without fail supports a man who says that the CONSTITUTION is obsolete and should be suspended because he didn’t win as well as his seditious followers.”
******************************
Oh come on! Aside from being a sexual deviate, Biden’s just a crook with an incompetence in leadership only a devious son and an airhead second (third?) wife with a doctorate in education and those who think like them could love. His dismissal of the Constitution comes from being at the bottom of his law school class. It takes brains to be devious there, JH.
“. . . lies, fighting words or crying fire in a crowded theater.”
The topic is “hate speech.” Since you seem to know what that means, what is the definition of “hate speech?”
It’s speech I hate.
Quantifiable damages are actionable.
The whole point of free speech is to allow commons to insult the King, nay, hate the King.
Yup.
Jonathan Turley on Twitter: “The President just demanded that Pence “send back” the certification votes. He does not have that authority under the Constitution or federal law. Trump condemned those stating that Pence does not have that authority as “stupid people.”” But Turley didn’t suggest that it was “chilling” for Trump to try to get Pence to act unconstitutionally.
Trump reiterated his Big Lie and then said that “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” and this was JT’s tepid response: https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1599157021722353665
I don’t think the Constitution should be suspended for any reason, including so-called pandemics.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense and infrastructure, aka “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the value of money, commerce among the States, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Where has the Supreme Court been for 150 years?
It finally retroactively corrected Roe v. Wade by 50 years.
It must now retroactively correct the unconstitutional, communist enslavement of once-free America by as many as 150 years.
Sprec free or forever hold your piece. And if you hold your piece don’t pee on me. 39th Amendment
I quote the Good Professor and then ask a question of him and those like him.
“As someone who was raised in a liberal Democratic family in Chicago, I do not know when the party went from being the defender of free speech to its most determined nemesis. However, with demands for censorship and the all-out war on Twitter, the Democratic party seems to have crossed the Rubicon on the First Amendment. That leaves many liberals (particularly classic liberals) and independents in a growing bind. Many of us view free speech as our defining American right.”
It seems quite clear the Good Professor acknowledges his Democrat Party has departed from once held beliefs re Freedom of Speech and now has become an enemy of such belief.
The question for Turley and those like him, who believe freedom of speech is the defining American Right, is why they continue to support the Democrat Party by not leaving it and joining a different Party that embraces that belief in the very essential importance of freedom of speech.
The way Turley gets attacked by those Democrats that he calls out…..he might as well officially join the Republican Party as he is already being treated as such by opponents of free speech.
The Republican Party has its own warts but at least we believe in the Constitution and the principles it is based upon…..the Democrat Party lost its ability to claim that due to its losing its way and shifting to the extreme far Left.
Thank you for that. I believe a lot (tens of millions) of Americans are in this quandary. Labor/anti-war Democrats of the 60’s-80’s, with their belief in fidelity to the Constitution have been on the run, whether they knew it or not, ever since the Clinton’s contaminated and subverted the best ideals formerly held by the Democrat Party. You know America is broken when: both parties vote in lockstep (the Uniparty), a 30 trillion dollar national debt with no notable voices calling for fiscal restraint, neocons freely switching from one party to the other, a widespread belief that there is no possibility of a viable 3rd party, a media which makes it’s editorial decisions based not on informing the people, but out of fear of the intelligence agencies that have decided that legalized brainwashing of Americans is not only possible but a desirable program based on ‘national security’ and almost nobody in Congress challenges them, the ‘dumbing down of Americans, and the politicization of those same intelligence/law enforcement agencies who are now mostly in charge of media content. These are just a few of my top issues, and there are hundreds of other data points which can lead one to conclude that corruption and special interests have overtaken this country to the point that we’re no longer able to right our ship of state. The fact that the Constitution continues to be under attack by many of the very people sworn to protect it, and that they get away with it time and time again, is the thing that will take us under.
Ralph Chappell,
I have noted in the past that people like the good professor, and Bill Maher are pointing out the insanity that has gripped the Democrat party.
I think the professor should register as a Independent.
Why should Professor Turley change his party? He is a Democrat. He is one of the few that remains a classical liberal and can help resurrect the party if a free nation remains. Our party system has failed us. Is there an alternate way?
Tyrants all agree no free speech or guns.
The reason the 1st is written as it is is because govt has no business defining acceptable/unacceptable speech – period. Libel and defamation are clear examples as civil actions BASED . “Hate speech” is a power and control technique. Anyone can hate whomever they wish- individuals, groups, philosophies, religions, sports teams, etc. If one hates Catholics, it’s up to those who don’t to point out this hatred not the govt’s. Not that govt would in this particular situation. Govt would pick those groups that support a particular party. That’s why “hate speech” was concocted in the first place. Govt does seem to mind if Christians are hated but gets apoplectic over queers and “protected groups” aka Democratic ID groups. All that needs to happen is for govt to enforce, prosecute, sentence under laws against criminal behavior.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
There are also several categories of criminal speech, including perjury, fraud, incitement, and fighting words.
You seem completely unaware of the multitude of govt. laws that censor fraudulent expression. Perjury, tax fraud, unproven medical device claims, SEC securities fraud, bank frauds, lottery fraud, identity fraud, money laundering, tampering with election results….do you want me to keep going?
Some of the hateful expressions are also quite illegal, such as death threats, rape threats, racial exclusion in housing and eateries, outbursts considered contempt of Court.
The public sphere belongs to the public, and its norms belong to the rational, self-actualizing majority. The infosphere does not belong to the most radical, alienated, sociopathic misanthropes to dominate with their wrath. To hand over norms to “us vs. them” radical elements of society is suicide.
Creative, out-of-the-box artists and thinkers can find a way to persuade without affronts to civility.
What we want govt. to stop doing is mounting fraudulent, deceptive infowarfare, a much more sophisticated workaround to censorship (not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution).
Fraudulent expression is not censored, but the speaker can be held accountable for speech that perpetrates fraud.
You geniuses amaze me! The Constitution is an agreement between the States, a participation versus compliance agreement, therefore everything in the constitution directly relates to the assembly and function of the States as the Union assembled in congress. Even the Bill of rights which put constraints on the collective power of the States as the Union over individuals, especially the first amendment. If you actually read the first amendment is has nothing to do with individuals having the right to free speech, or even the freedom of the press, outside the narrow confines of how that speech is directed towards the government, especially an improperly assembled government. The first amendment is actually the first whistleblower law, preventing the government from making laws to protect the government from those who are speaking out about the government.
The same is true for assembly and especially about the right petition the government for redress of grievances.
Congress is prevented from making any law which would prevent or abridge in any way a persons, or the press, from calling them out, even me, I could right now file a petition for the government being improperly assembled and improperly functioning, and there’s nothing the government can do to stop me, they must immediately form a court to adjudicate my grievance, they cannot decide it themselves, because they are a party to the disagreement, and they cannot force me to have it adjudicated by a court of their choosing, I must agree with the assembled court before I am compelled to abide by their decision.
Maybe you should read Article 9 Clause 2 of the Articles of Confederation, which is still in effect today as it was not amended, if you don’t understand, keep reading it until you do!
The Organic Laws are included at the beginning of the US Code: Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Northwest Ordinance, and The US Constitution. The latter did not abrogate any of the former.
Ah, the latter supercedes ALL of the former so they’re fine only if the Constitution says they’re fine:
Art. VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Read this man. He is correct.
The Constitution.
The whole Constitution.
And nothing but the Constitution.
So help you God.
And what would that cause of action be? Denial of your civil rights? In Federal Court, and against who, a corporation? Get real. The enemy (of the Constitution) isn’t playing that way. The government is using corporate cut-outs to infringe our 1st Amendment rights. So what do you do now smart guy?
“And what would that cause of action be?”
Fire, arrest, prosecute, then jail the government fascists who imposed censorship. (Their actions were in fact illegal. It’s called “deprivation of rights under color of law.”) Then sue the former Twitter employees for fraud and for the same civil rights violations,
And for good measure, relegate them all to dog walkers.
Look at him. He is an old relic. As feeble and harebrained as old Joe. Like many of his colleagues he won’t be around in five years.
Age is not the issue. Ben Cardin has been an idiot for a long time, and when he is gone, he will be replaced by a younger idiot.
The ignorance of the Constitution by Senator Ben Cardin and his arbitrary capricious expediency in political decision-making disqualifies this man to sit in the Senate
No, it does not disqualify him, and he is clearly not the only idiot in Congress.
Yep, an ignorant thing for Cardin to say, and shameful for a Senator not to know better.
That said, I’d take JT’s claim that “It is particularly chilling for one of the nation’s most powerful politicians (sworn to “support and defend the Constitution“) to show either a lack of knowledge or lack of fealty to the First Amendment,” when he applies that response equally to politicians regardless of party who show either a lack of knowledge or lack of fealty to the Constitution. Trump, for example, had to be sued to prevent him from blocking people on his official Twitter account, a 1st Amendment violation, and there are plenty of other examples of his lack of knowledge or fealty.
This is just one example of why the FBI, State Dept, CIA and other sundry alphabet federal agencies feel no need to even pretend they are bound by the Constitution. Mental midgets in the Democrat Party, fully support and provide cover, because the FBI, etal is the Democrat Part secret police
It is ABOUT TIME that someone made that point so that it will finally get to the SCOTUS and have all the hate speech appeasement legislation thrown out as unconstitutional. Make the prog/left heads explode. If we don’t, inevitably there will be no speech that is safe.
If the first goes, we have lost.
This is the hill to defend.
I have had pretty tolerant contempt for lefties.
But anybody trying to abridge the first has crossed the line.
mc:
Really the Second guarantees the First.
Knowing the toxic ideology of the prog/left, how is it that your have had only a “pretty tolerant” contempt for lefties rather than understanding them and their long-term agenda for the great peril it always was? Understanding them at all would inevitably lead to a knowledge of their toxicity to our society and nation.
Thank you for exposing this crap.