The former editor of Time wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post on Tuesday making an argument for why the First Amendment needs to be changed to include a hate speech law.
By asserting that hate speech leads to mass violence, the left hopes to persuade Americans to relinquish their right to free speech. To make that more palatable, they insist that freedom of speech is merely a “value,” instead of a right.
Either we reclaim our constitutional heritage, or we collapse in barbaric anarchy that will make us wish we were instead at the fall of Rome. The prescription is to defend the Constitution against the insidious creep of tyranny.
The city will now censor and penalize anyone for using the correct legal term that has been used in both federal immigration law and numerous court decisions, including by the Supreme Court. This is an outrageous violation of the First Amendment.
The move by the city’s Commission on Human Rights, its latest attempt to fight discrimination against illegal immigrants, is expected to face a quick court challenge based on the First Amendment.
The truth is that none of these businesses refuse service to gay or lesbian people, nor wish to do so. The vast majority of business activities do not affect anyone’s freedom of speech or religion.
It’s long overdue for courts to declare that people can’t be forced to take part in speech that they find morally repugnant.
Section 1 of their “Democracy for All” Amendment authorizes Congress and the states to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” This would allow a future left wing Congress to revive and strengthen BCRA.
A Twitter representative told the Daily Caller News Foundation Wednesday that the McConnell account was locked and the video removed, because it violated the company’s “violent threats policy.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) relaunched its Legal Network encouraging attorneys to defend student and faculty First Amendment rights after it earned its 13th win in court earlier this year.
“Social media platforms should advance freedom of speech. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear ‘violations’ of user policies,” the webpage reads.