The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Freedom for the Speech We Hate
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Judge Fired For Facebook Post
Criticizing Dems’ AntiFa Thugs And Snowflakes
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ Not all judges these days are crazy left-wing zealots intent on changing America into a communist liar-nObamatopia, but the ones who aren’t and speak up are likely to pay a price... It’s one thing to usurp and overrule the President of the United States twice and the Supreme Court of the United States in bench legislation, as liar-nObama’s choomy so-called Judge Derrick Watson did in the case of the executive order terrorist importation pauses. That’s acceptable behavior apparently, as no sanctions were issued for any of the offenses, with tortured, irrational and disjointed non-opinions barely issued in explanation. But let a judge denounce the leftist Democrat hit squad, the AntiFa thug force, and there’s hell to pay. One Atlanta judge is paying for his transgressions now, at home and out of a job. It’s not because of an on-the-job error in judgment, having violated his oath or ruled, as Judge Watson did, utilizing a portion of his anatomy typically reserved for use as a foundation while sitting... http://rickwells.us/judge-fired-facebook-post-criticizing-dems-antifa-thugs-snowflakes/.
Details of pre-planned
terror attack in Jerusalem emerge
The destroyed security vehicle
by Ido Ben Porat
{israelnationalnews.com} ~ On Thursday, an indictment will be filed against an Israeli-Arab terrorist who carried out a terror attack two weeks ago... The Arab suspect, together with two other suspects, was arrested in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan on Sunday night after attacking a private security vehicle with a petrol bomb two weeks ago. Investigations show the suspect in fact carried out the acts he was suspected of, and planned them ahead of time. The terrorist and his partners noticed a security vehicle driving near a central traffic circle, and slowed down. At that point, one of the terrorists poured flammable material on the vehicle's hood and windshield, and then threw a firebomb at it... http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/234071?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl.
The Palestinian Authority is a Genocidal
Terrorist Entity and Should be Treated as Such
President Donald Trump told Mahmoud Abbas what no other Western leader dared to say.
President Donald Trump told Mahmoud Abbas what no other Western leader dared to say.
He knows that there is nothing to expect from the Palestinian Authority and that
Jason Greenblatt's mission is destined to fail.
by Guy Millière
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ The latest slaughter in the land of Israel took place in Halamish, Samaria, on July 21. A Palestinian stabbed to death a Jewish grandfather and two of his children... The grandmother was injured seriously. Countless similar attacks occurred in Israel in the recent and not-so-recent past. Once again, thousands of Palestinian Arabs joyfully celebrated the murders. Some handed out candy. The murderer was praised by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. If he had been shot to death, he would have instantly become a martyr of Islam. A street in Ramallah would be named after him. His picture would be posted in storefronts in the territories occupied by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and his family would be rewarded with a high "salary" for life... https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10797/palestinian-authority-genocidal#continuedby Guy Millière
.
Dem Rep. Arrested at White House Immigration Protest
by Charles Fain Lehman
{freebeacon.com} ~ Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D., Ill.) was one of approximately 30 protesters arrested Tuesday in front of the White House during a pro-immigration rally... Gutiérrez was arrested when he and others sat on the White House sidewalk as a form of protest, the Hill reports. The rally was in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented under the liar-nObama administration. Gutiérrez and his fellow protesters were escorted away by U.S. Park Police, according to a Gutiérrez spokesman, and taken to their headquarters in Anacostia Park... http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-rep-arrested/
.
Condi Rice Destroys Liberals
With a History Lesson About Slavery
by Thomas
{thepoliticalinsider.com} ~ If you didn’t see it, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from the Bush Administration went on Fox News to promote her new book: “Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom.”... After what happened in Charlottesville, the topic is especially timely, which is why Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade immediately asked her an important question: “I want to talk about where your book starts, and that’s our Constitution. As an African-American woman, do you see yourself in this Constitution? Do you think that, when we look at nine of our first twelve presidents as slave owners, should we start taking their statues down and say, we’re embarrassed by you?” Without hesitation, Rice fired back: “In a word, No.” She continued... http://thepoliticalinsider.com/condi-rice-sanitize-history/?utm_content=4b4ea4948726422aa6473c7b9fa19141&source=CI&utm_campaign=TPI_Morning_Newsletter_8_17_17&utm_source=TPI-Newsletter-8-17-17-morning&utm_medium=email
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Last weekend, serious violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, when a group of white supremacist demonstrators was confronted by a group of folks who were there to condemn the message the demonstrators had come to advance. The message was critical of the government for removing a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public place.
For some, Lee is associated with the military defense of slavery. For others, he is associated with the military defense of the right of states to leave the union -- a union they voluntarily joined. For the organizers of the Charlottesville rally, the removal of the statue provided a platform to articulate crudely their view that the Caucasian race is somehow morally superior to every other.
Such a political and philosophical position is hardly rational to anyone who respects the dignity of all people and their moral equality before God and legal equality in America. Believing that one race is morally superior to others is largely a hate-filled theory, supportable only by bias, prejudice, fear and resentment -- and perhaps a wish to turn back the clock to a time when the Supreme Court declared that nonwhites were not full people under the Constitution, a declaration eradicated by war and history and constitutional amendments.
These hateful, hurtful ideas -- articulated publicly through Nazi salutes and flags and incendiary rhetoric last weekend -- aroused animosity on the part of those who came to Charlottesville to resist and challenge and condemn these views. After the police left the scene and rejected their duty to protect the speakers and those in the audience, a crazy person drove his car into the midst of the melee that ensued, and an innocent young woman was killed when she was hit by the car.
Is hate speech protected under the Constitution? In a word, yes.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects "the freedom of speech" from infringement by the government, has a long and storied history. The drafters of the amendment referred to it as "the" freedom of speech in order to underscore its pre-political existence. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is a natural right, one that derives from our humanity, and hence it pre-existed the government that was prohibited from infringing upon it. The government doesn't grant free speech, but it is supposed to protect it.
In the early years of the republic, Congress punished speech that was critical of the government, through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The same generation that had just written that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech abridged it. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, relying on no law, punished speech in the North that was critical of his wartime presidency. During both world wars, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt used the Espionage Act of 1917 to punish speech that was hateful of the government, because, they argued, it might tend to undermine the nation's war efforts. Lincoln's infringements were rejected by the Supreme Court. Wilson's and FDR's were upheld.
It was not until 1969 that a unanimous Supreme Court gave us the modern articulation of the nature and extent of free speech. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio, verbally attacked Jews and blacks in the government in Washington, D.C., at a public rally. He urged his followers to travel to Washington and produce violence against them. He was prosecuted and convicted under an Ohio law that largely prohibited the public expression of hatred as a means to overthrow the government.
Brandenburg's conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court, which ruled essentially that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech we hate and fear. The speech we love and embrace needs no protection. Moreover, the right to decide what speech to listen to is enjoyed by individuals, not by groups collectively and not by the government.
All innocuous speech, the court ruled, is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. This rule -- known as the Brandenburg doctrine -- has consistently been upheld by the court since its articulation.
Now, back to Charlottesville. The government cannot take sides in public disputes, because by doing so, it becomes a censor and thus infringes upon the free speech rights of those against whom it has taken a position. On the contrary -- and this was not done in Charlottesville -- the government has the duty to protect the speaker's right to say whatever he wishes and the audience's right to hear and respond to the speaker.
When the police decline to maintain order -- as was their decision in Charlottesville -- they permit the "heckler's veto," whereby the audience silences the speech it hates. And when the heckler's veto comes about through government failure as it did in Charlottesville, it is unconstitutional. It is the functional equivalent of the government's taking sides and censoring the speech it hates or fears.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate about the policies of the government and the people who run it. It would be antithetical to that purpose for the government itself to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not in public discourse.
What about hate speech? The remedy for it is not to silence or censor it, because we need to know from whence it comes. The remedy is more speech -- speech to challenge the hatred, speech to educate the haters, speech to expose their moral vacuity. More speech will create an atmosphere antithetical to hatred, and it will reinforce the right of every individual to pursue happiness, which is the American promise.
But that promise is only as valuable as the fidelity to it of those in government, whom we have hired to protect it. In Charlottesville, they failed.
Freedom for the Speech We Hate
{townhall.com} ~ Last weekend, serious violence broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia, when a group of white supremacist demonstrators was confronted by a group of folks who were there to condemn the message the demonstrators had come to advance. The message was critical of the government for removing a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee from a public place.
For some, Lee is associated with the military defense of slavery. For others, he is associated with the military defense of the right of states to leave the union -- a union they voluntarily joined. For the organizers of the Charlottesville rally, the removal of the statue provided a platform to articulate crudely their view that the Caucasian race is somehow morally superior to every other.
Such a political and philosophical position is hardly rational to anyone who respects the dignity of all people and their moral equality before God and legal equality in America. Believing that one race is morally superior to others is largely a hate-filled theory, supportable only by bias, prejudice, fear and resentment -- and perhaps a wish to turn back the clock to a time when the Supreme Court declared that nonwhites were not full people under the Constitution, a declaration eradicated by war and history and constitutional amendments.
These hateful, hurtful ideas -- articulated publicly through Nazi salutes and flags and incendiary rhetoric last weekend -- aroused animosity on the part of those who came to Charlottesville to resist and challenge and condemn these views. After the police left the scene and rejected their duty to protect the speakers and those in the audience, a crazy person drove his car into the midst of the melee that ensued, and an innocent young woman was killed when she was hit by the car.
Is hate speech protected under the Constitution? In a word, yes.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects "the freedom of speech" from infringement by the government, has a long and storied history. The drafters of the amendment referred to it as "the" freedom of speech in order to underscore its pre-political existence. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is a natural right, one that derives from our humanity, and hence it pre-existed the government that was prohibited from infringing upon it. The government doesn't grant free speech, but it is supposed to protect it.
In the early years of the republic, Congress punished speech that was critical of the government, through the Alien and Sedition Acts. The same generation that had just written that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech abridged it. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, relying on no law, punished speech in the North that was critical of his wartime presidency. During both world wars, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt used the Espionage Act of 1917 to punish speech that was hateful of the government, because, they argued, it might tend to undermine the nation's war efforts. Lincoln's infringements were rejected by the Supreme Court. Wilson's and FDR's were upheld.
It was not until 1969 that a unanimous Supreme Court gave us the modern articulation of the nature and extent of free speech. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in Ohio, verbally attacked Jews and blacks in the government in Washington, D.C., at a public rally. He urged his followers to travel to Washington and produce violence against them. He was prosecuted and convicted under an Ohio law that largely prohibited the public expression of hatred as a means to overthrow the government.
Brandenburg's conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court, which ruled essentially that the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech we hate and fear. The speech we love and embrace needs no protection. Moreover, the right to decide what speech to listen to is enjoyed by individuals, not by groups collectively and not by the government.
All innocuous speech, the court ruled, is absolutely protected, and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it. This rule -- known as the Brandenburg doctrine -- has consistently been upheld by the court since its articulation.
Now, back to Charlottesville. The government cannot take sides in public disputes, because by doing so, it becomes a censor and thus infringes upon the free speech rights of those against whom it has taken a position. On the contrary -- and this was not done in Charlottesville -- the government has the duty to protect the speaker's right to say whatever he wishes and the audience's right to hear and respond to the speaker.
When the police decline to maintain order -- as was their decision in Charlottesville -- they permit the "heckler's veto," whereby the audience silences the speech it hates. And when the heckler's veto comes about through government failure as it did in Charlottesville, it is unconstitutional. It is the functional equivalent of the government's taking sides and censoring the speech it hates or fears.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, robust debate about the policies of the government and the people who run it. It would be antithetical to that purpose for the government itself to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not in public discourse.
What about hate speech? The remedy for it is not to silence or censor it, because we need to know from whence it comes. The remedy is more speech -- speech to challenge the hatred, speech to educate the haters, speech to expose their moral vacuity. More speech will create an atmosphere antithetical to hatred, and it will reinforce the right of every individual to pursue happiness, which is the American promise.
But that promise is only as valuable as the fidelity to it of those in government, whom we have hired to protect it. In Charlottesville, they failed.
Comments