Connect with us

First Amendment

Former Obama Official Richard Stengel Says America Needs To Ban ‘Hate Speech’

No thank you!

Published

on

Former Obama Official Richard Stengel Says America Needs To Ban ‘Hate Speech’

MSNBC analyst suggested that the U.S. should ban hate speech.

“As a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier,” he said. “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why they asked me would you ever want to protect that?”

He suggests there’s a precedent that would allow states to experiment with European-style “hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.”

Free Beacon:

MSNBC political analyst and former Obama administration official Richard Stengel argued that America needs to outlaw hateful speech, including Koran burning.

“Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw,” Stengel argued in a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday.

Trending: POTUS Prepares to Take LITERAL Victory Lap at Daytona 500 After Impeachment Acquittal

Stengel, who worked as the managing editor of Time magazine before becoming undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs at the State Department under President Barack Obama, endorsed the creation of a hate speech law in the op-ed. The MSNBC analyst said his experience in the Obama administration led him to renounce the idea that the Constitution protects “not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

“As a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier,” he said. “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” More

This is where the Democrats would take us. He doesn’t get that being an outlier is a good thing. The devil is in the details. Who gets to call something hate speech The Left or The right? That’s why free speech is exactly that free speech. No one can shut it down or should be able to shut it down.

Here’s an extra little nugget that’s sure to make your blood boil too:

 

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

First Amendment

Creepy Joe Biden Pledges to Eliminate Free Speech if He Becomes President

Creepy, handsy Joe Biden has basically pledged to put an end to free speech once he wins the White House in 2020.

Published

on

Creepy, handsy Joe Biden has basically pledged to put an end to free speech once he wins the White House in 2020.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Biden promised to put an end to the speech protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, especially as it applies to the Internet.

Biden’s promise came during a discussion about Facebook, which recently refused to remove political advertising that liberals say is “bad.”

“I’ve never been a fan of Facebook. I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he’s a real problem,” Biden told the paper’s editorial board.

Facebook has refused to pull Trump campaign ads that the Biden campaign attacked as “debunked.” For instance, Facebook won’t block Trump ads that accuse Joe and Hunter Biden of engaging in corruption in Ukraine.

Biden claims these accusations have been “debunked.” They haven’t, of course. Biden is a liar, so, there’s that.

In any case, during his discussion with the Times, Biden said he would repeal Section 230.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden told the paper.

As Reason.com adds:

When the Times’ Charlie Warzel points out that Section 230 is “pretty foundational” to the modern internet, Biden takes his personal disagreement with Zuckerberg and blows it up into a policy that would destroy free speech for all internet users.

“That’s right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy,” Biden says. “You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”

Biden goes on to say that both Zuckerberg and Facebook should be held civilly liable for false information posted on the platform, and even leaves open the possibility that Zuckerberg could somehow be held criminally liable. All of this, Biden says, is because Facebook ran “Russian ads” during the last presidential campaign.

So, there you have it, folks.

Joe Biden would put an end to free speech on the Internet to prevent all conservatives from being allowed to speak freely on the Internet.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston. And be sure and check out our great products at RepublicanLegion.com.

Continue Reading

First Amendment

Democrat Candidates Promise to Limit Free Speech on the Internet if They Win

Most of the Democrat candidates for president have promised that if they win the White House they will crack down on free speech on the Internet.

Published

on

Most of the Democrat candidates for president have promised that if they win the White House, they will crack down on free speech on the Internet in order to curb “hate speech.”

Naturally, what they really mean is that they will eliminate the free speech of all conservatives on the Internet, the one place in media where conservatives have any chance of getting their message out to the voters.

The pledges were issued by the candidates in response to a query from the extremist, left-wing website Vox.

According to Vox, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg, and others, pledged to use government to force big tech companies to shut down any speech that the candidates claim is “hate speech.”

Yes, that is quite despite the fact that “hate speech” is not illegal and is even protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In his reply, Bernie Sanders insisted that he would make sure that “right wing hate groups” are shut down.

“Tech giants and online platforms should not be shielded from responsibility when they knowingly allow content on their platforms that promotes and facilitates violence,” Sanders said adding that big tech is responsible to stop right-wingers from using the Internet to push their agenda.

Sanders also exclaimed that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is out of date.

Section 230 maintains that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

In other words, Internet providers and outlets such as Facebook cannot be held responsible if their users use the services to promulgate hate or foment terrorist acts.

Sanders said section 230 was “written well before the current era of online communities, expression, and technological development” and that he would reverse that protection and force tech companies to be accountable for “dangerous activity” on their platforms.

Pete Buttigieg said that “Sites that traffic in hate and encourage or fail to moderate abuse and hate should be called out as facilitating socially harmful speech.”

For her part, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, “Big tech companies cannot continue to hide behind free speech while profiting off of hate speech and disinformation campaigns.”

“That’s why I’ve called out Facebook for operating as a disinformation-for-profit machine and why I’m committed to unwinding Facebook’s anti-competitive mergers and cracking down on practices that allow the company to undermine our democracy,” Warren added.

Little known candidate Michael Bennett also said he would eliminate the protections for free speech on the Internet.

“It is time to revisit the broad immunity provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which in many cases has shielded tech companies from accountability for misinformation and hate speech on their platforms,” Bennett said.

Conservatives who have already had their free speech on the Internet quashed by left-leaning big tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Google already know that big tech won’t raise a voice to stop Democrats from making the Internet a Chinese-like no-free-speech zone. After all, these fascist big tech agrees with Democrats that free speech does not belong on the Internet… free speech for conservatives, that is.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

First Amendment

Arizona Supreme Court Rules Phoenix Cannot Force Christians to Make Wedding Invites for Gays

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled this week that a Christian-owned art studio cannot be compelled to make wedding invitations for a gay couple.

Published

on

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled this week that a Christian-owned art studio cannot be compelled to make wedding invitations for a gay couple.

In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court ruled that the City of Phoenix can neither compel the Christian business to cater to a gay wedding nor can the city impose fines or jail time for violating the city’s rules.

Phoenix punished the owners of Phoenix-based Brush & Nib Studio, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, with a $2,500 fine and a threat of six months in jail for refusing to make the invitations for a same-sex couple.

But the court ruled against the city.

The business owners were sanctioned for violating the city’s 2013 ordinance that supposedly prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.”

According to Fox Business:

“Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some,” wrote Justice Andrew Gould in the opinion of the court. “But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive.”

“To conclude, we hold that the Ordinance, as applied to Plaintiffs’ custom wedding invitations, and the creation of those invitations, unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the Arizona Constitution’s free speech clause,” Gould wrote.

While dissenting Judge Christopher Staring essentially agreed with the central reason for rejecting the city’s position, he also worried that the decision would serve as an excuse for discrimination.

“Among other things, I am concerned that, ironically, today’s holding could be relied on to discriminate against individuals based on their religion and religious beliefs, notwithstanding the fact that both Arizona and Phoenix include religion as a basis for protection in their public accommodation laws,” Judge Staring wrote.

Free speech and freedom of religion advocates celebrated the decision.

“Today, freedom won,” attorney Jonathan Scroggs of Alliance Defending Freedom told Fox. “Everyone should enjoy the freedom to peacefully live out their beliefs without fear that the government will silence them or force them to promote messages that violate their core convictions. That freedom should be protected, regardless of whether people share the government’s point of view. We’re encouraged that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled today to protect that key freedom— guaranteed by the Constitution and so crucial to American life.”

This week’s ruling is just one more example that these anti-First Amendment rules put in place by extremist, let-wing states and city governments are unconstitutional.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend