Hateful, but protected in the US by our Constitution. Which of course, federal officers are sworn to preserve, protect and uphold.
For now.
The US and Egypt (!) have cosponsored a UN Human Rights resolution with some slippery language, according to UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh:
(Why) the fuss, some might ask, if we’re protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
Change you can believe in.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” — George Orwell
The left hates anything that smacks of real truth. No absolutes here. Therefore, no criticism of anything is allowed. The left is more than happy to denigrate the US at every opportunity.
Yeah, not all hopenchangy here.
How curious, when the POTUS is a “respected Constitutional scholar”, who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
I am a strict Taftian on the subject of free speech. William Howard Taft once said, ” we must afford the greatest protection to the speech that offends us most, for if we ban that, where will the banning end?”
Scott the Badger … As I understand it, Obama was not a tenured professor in constitutional law at the U. of Chicago, but rather an *adjunct professor* teaching certain portions of constitutional law as related to racial discrimination issues. He certainly frequently shows a kind of scary lack of knowledge about the Constitution and its Amendments, as well as an unfamiliarity with important historical subjects like the Monroe Doctrine and its continuing effect on our relationships with other countries in this hemisphere. And don’t even ask him about Teddy Roosevelt. Who?
Marianne
Ms. Matthews,
TR is constantly on my mind as I listen to the left of today, as Mr. Roosevelt once said, ” You must have an open mind, but it shouldn’t be so open that geese can roam freely through it”. Last Wednesday, I hauled a pickup truck full of laundry to the nearby laundromat. As I washed, the attendant had MSNBC on, and I had to listen to Chris Matthews rant against the evil conservatives. All I could hear was honking from him and his guests. Just as I know that I am approaching Madison, as I head East on US 12, as I start to hear honking about the time I hit the Dane County line.
SCOTT
What bothers me most is that POTUS is on record, both written, and recorded (sound) as stating that our own Constitution is a “deeply flawed document”.
That being the case, it begs the question as to whether he still believes that to be the case, for, in my humble judgment, if he does, then that runs counter to his sworn oath to “Protect and defend” the Constitution and is grounds for impeachment.
Either he believes in his oath and stands ready to defend it against all comers, or he is a lying crapweasel who deserves to be tossed out of office at the earliest possible time.
respects,
Mr. AW1 Tim, after due deliberation between the two choices, I have to vote for BHO being a lying crapweasal.
Duration of due deliberation was approximately one (1) femtosecond.
V/R
AW1 Tim,
Sorry, but lying crapweasel is too kind a term, but I think it is about as far as our gentlemanly host will allow in any discourse. After all, we can’t sink to the depths of the liberal blogs (much less their commentariat).
Edward/
I’ve become much attached to THIS definition/description of lefties: “Liberalism: Logic’s retarded cousin.”
I have been involved in debates on a left-wing blog with not only Americans but those of the European persuasion. It was put to me that America’s failure to protect minority/oppressed populations against public expression of viewpoints that in their view seek to perpetuate their oppression calls into question the legitimacy of considering America a civilized country. To their credit the Americans on the list, although far to the left of me, for the most part (with one or two dissenters) disagreed.
But America seems to be pretty much standing alone in standing for absolute free speech. Yes, we don’t let you yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. But just about anything else goes. Few other countries are as free. Thanks God that the First Amendment is in the Constitution and not just in the U.S. Code or we’d all be in trouble.
Having said that; I think the left-wingers I was dealing with have more personal integrity than the people leading organizations such as ACORN or the U.S. Congress. They appear to be ready to sell anything out to pursue their agendas, and shutting up the opposition by defining them as hate-filled nutbags seems to be right up their alley.
More to the point in this context, though, is that I would not expect any other country to stand with us and insist on free speech. The dictatorships, oligarchies and theocracys I can understand, as they would be destroyed under free speech. The question to me is why would parlimentary democracies also embrace this? Is the answer that their regimes as well would be threatened by free speech?