Next, an arrogant, fellow Brit decided that he knew more about the First Amendment that the United States Supreme Court...
Then, came this...
Then, came this...
'The document also seems to categorize speech that challenges or disagrees with transgenderism as “violence.”
“Transphobic misinformation is a form of systemic violence,” read the document, which included examples of the alleged verbal violence: “Fixed binaries and biological essentialism, manifest in gendered language, misgendering someone, and the policing of trans bodies, threaten the lives of trans people.”'
Since last night, I have been debating Howard Dean's preposterous tweet that 'hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.' Of course, it is, but I think that three cases that I have raised illustrate how stupid this whole notion of words (also expression, presence, etc) = violence.
Those arguing that disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is a form of 'violence' need to face reality.
If disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is 'violence', wouldn't these 'speech = violence' people also think that the Neo-Nazis marching through a town waving swastikas where 1/6th of the residents were survivors of or related to survivors of the Holocaust was 'violent'?
Those arguing that disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is a form of 'violence' need to face reality.
If disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is 'violence', wouldn't these 'speech = violence' people also think that the Neo-Nazis marching through a town waving swastikas where 1/6th of the residents were survivors of or related to survivors of the Holocaust was 'violent'?
Yet, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that such speech was protected under the First Amendment. (See: National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)).
If Neo-Nazis' swastikas and marches are protected speech and not considered to be violence per se, then how is disagreeing with transgenderism violence?
If disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is 'violence', wouldn't these 'speech = violence' people also think that a teenager burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family would constitute 'violence'?
Surely, if disagreeing with transgenderism equals violence, burning a cross in a black family's front garden would certainly qualify as such. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) that such speech was protected and a bias-motivation ordinance banning so-called 'fighting words' was unconstitutional on its face.
Finally, this case should hit transgender activists and 'hate speech = violence' right in the smacker.
If disagreeing with 'transgenderism' is 'violence', wouldn't these 'speech = violence' people also think that members of a
Yet, in an 8-1 decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011),, the Supreme Court ruled that such was protected speech under the First Amendment. Ironically, the transgender advocates and 'hate speech = violence' activists agree with the very Catholic Justice Alito, whom the Left has accused of wanting to impose a theocracy.
These people need to learn that criticism isn't illegal (even when very, very 'obnoxious', as Justice Scalia wrote in R.A.V.), is protected under the First Amendment, and hurt feelings aren't going to change that.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to send these universities a 'Dear Colleague' letter reminding these public institutions that the First Amendment is very much in effect. They are taxpayer-funded, they receive Federal research grants, and, further, many, if not most, of the students are attending via Federal student loans. If these universities want to even try to suppress First Amendment rights, then they must forego ALL taxpayer monies of every kind.
There's No 'Hate Speech' Exception To The First Amendment Nor Is Speech 'Violence'
http://sophiesimplystated.blogspot.com/2017/04/theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to.html
Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to send these universities a 'Dear Colleague' letter reminding these public institutions that the First Amendment is very much in effect. They are taxpayer-funded, they receive Federal research grants, and, further, many, if not most, of the students are attending via Federal student loans. If these universities want to even try to suppress First Amendment rights, then they must forego ALL taxpayer monies of every kind.
Secondly, those public universities, including the administrators, individually, that succumb to the 'Rioters' Veto' should be hit hard - and often - with § 1983 actions. Any public official, including university employees, police chiefs, and mayors (like the one in Berkeley), who infringe upon the civil and constitutional rights of students or speakers, needs to be hit with a § 1983 suit, which would also provide for the plaintiffs to receive treble damages.
'Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ….'These officials could also face Federal prosecution. That should throw a wrench in their totalitarian machines.
