dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

November 21, 2017

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful;

but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.”

… A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the

substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

>>9900699

Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1293

It is claimed that the disparagement clause serves two interests. The first is phrased in a variety of ways in the briefs. Echoing language in one of the opinions below, the Government asserts an interest in preventing “ ‘underrepresented groups’ ” from being “ ‘bombarded with demeaning messages in commercial advertising.’ ” Brief for Petitioner 48 (quoting 808 F. 3d, at 1364 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). An amicus supporting the Government refers to “encouraging racial tolerance and protecting the privacy and welfare of individuals.” Brief for Native American Organizations as Amici Curiae 21. But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

>>9900760

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/

FREE EXPRESSION

Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech

Progressive college students seem to think violence is okay as long as it's silencing 'hate speech.' Someone should tell them there's no such thing.

John Daniel DavidsonBy John Daniel Davidson

APRIL 20, 2017

For the sake of campus protestors and their professors across the country, it’s time to make something clear: there’s no such thing as hate speech.

That should go without saying, since freedom of speech and free inquiry is supposed to be what college is all about. But the recent spate of violent student protests, from the University of California at Berkeley to Middlebury College in Vermont, have been met with a collective shrug from an alarming number of college students, professors, and administrators who seem to be under the impression that violence is okay so long as its purpose is to silence “hate speech.”

By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? That’s hate speech. Think transgenderism is a form of mental illness? Hate speech. Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

But in fact, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, “Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or “hateful” are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest.

>>9900768

‘Fighting Words’ Are Not Hate Speech

There are, of course, certain kinds of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. But those have nothing to do with hate speech, which has no legal definition. For example, there’s an exception for “fighting words,” which the courts have defined as a face-to-face insult directed at a specific person for the purpose of provoking a fight.

But fighting words can’t be expanded to mean hate speech—or even bigoted speech.

In the early 1990s, the city of St. Paul tried to do just that, by punishing what it considered bigoted fighting words under its Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. The case, which involved a white teenager burning a cross made from taped-together broken chair legs in the front yard of a black family that lived across the street, went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court ruled the city’s ordinance was facially unconstitutional (which means a statute is always unconstitutional and hence void) and that it constituted viewpoint-based discrimination. Writing for the majority in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia explained that, as written,

the ordinance applies only to ‘fighting words’ that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ Displays containing abusive invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish to use ‘fighting words’ in connection with other ideas—to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality—are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.

As for discriminating against certain viewpoints, Scalia noted that fighting words are excluded from First Amendment protection not because they communicate a particular idea but because “their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.” The city’s ordinance, he wrote, simply didn’t fit the definition of fighting words:

>>9900777

St. Paul has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression—it has not, for example, selected for prohibition only those ﬁghting words that communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious) manner. Rather, it has proscribed ﬁghting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas.

Of course, no one is pretending that today’s campus rioters are reacting to fighting words. The protesters who shouted down Charles Murray at Middlebury last month and later attacked him and another professor in a parking lot (sending the professor to the hospital) were not impelled to violence by fighting words. They chose violence as their response to particular ideas they found offensive, nothing more.

Incitement Isn’t Hate Speech, Either

Same thing goes for incitement. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater or tweeting your plans to attack Murray at a specific date and time are not forms of speech protected by the First Amendment—not because they’re hate speech but because they’re crimes. It’s illegal to make a specific threat against someone, just as it’s illegal to incite a panic (or a riot).

Those restrictions on speech apply to everyone at all times, not just those whom campus protesters believe are engaging in hate speech. The prohibition against “imminent lawless action” comes from a 1969 Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which a Ku Klux Klan leader was charged with advocating violence under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statue. At a KKK rally in 1964, the Klan leader gave a speech calling for a march on Washington and made references to the possibility of “revengence” against Jews and African-Americans and their supporters.

The court overturned Ohio’s syndicalism statue and overruled an earlier decision, in Whitney v. California (1927), that held if speech has a “tendency” to cause lawlessness it can be prohibited. Instead, it articulated “the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In other words, you’re allowed to call for the eradication of the Bill of Rights, even the overthrow of the government, as long as you’re not inciting “imminent lawless action.” Campus protesters opposing Citizens United or gun ownership are effectively calling for the suppression of the First and Second Amendments, just as the black-shirted “antifa” protestors at Berkeley last week were advocating “resistance” against the Trump administration.

Their rioting wasn’t legal, but their advocacy for resistance was. Just like it’s legal to advocate for a border wall to keep out illegal immigrants. No matter how hateful some college students think that is, it has nothing to do with incitement and is therefore protected by the First Amendment.

‘Hate Speech’ Is a Pretext for the Heckler’s Veto

Shutting down free speech with violence is becoming commonplace on college campuses across the country. Instead of cracking down on violent protests, college administrators are simply canceling controversial events, giving in to the heckler’s—or rioter’s—veto.

On Wednesday, UC-Berkeley announced it had canceled an event with Ann Coulter scheduled for next week, citing recent violent clashes downtown and, back in February, on campus, ahead of a planned appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos. After that protest, at which masked individuals set fires, threw fireworks and Molotov cocktails, attacked members of the crowd, and threw rocks at police, the student newspaper ran an editorial boasting, “Protests show presence of free speech on campus.”

But the student editors at UC-Berkeley, like the Wellesley College editors who recently warned that politically incorrect speech should be met with “hostility,” have no idea what free speech is. They believe free speech is only for certain people with certain ideas. Everything else is “hate speech,” and anyone engaging in it should be muzzled—by force if necessary.

Our college students have come to this impasse in large part because their parents, high school teachers, college professors, and school officials have all failed them. They have not only refused to instill in them a reverence for the First Amendment, they have taught them to despise the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the very things that protect their right to protest. In so doing, they have turned them into the thing they claim to despise most: fascists.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/

UMMMMMM sorry were not falling for the "hate speech line" or talking the way YOU want us to:

FREE EXPRESSION

Sorry, College Kids, There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech

‘Fighting Words’ Are Not Hate Speech

But fighting words can’t be expanded to mean hate speech—or even bigoted speech.

Incitement Isn’t Hate Speech, Either

Saying ‘Hate Speech’ Is a Pretext for the Heckler’s Veto

2017

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/sorry-college-kids-theres-no-thing-hate-speech/

https://www.thefire.org/there-is-no-such-thing-as-hate-speech/

>>9900859

for all the retards on the boards

There Is No Such Thing as ‘Hate Speech’

by Sean Clark

February 24, 2006

Yes, that is correct. “Hate speech” is not a category of speech recognized under current constitutional law. It is merely

a convenient way to pigeonhole speech that some people find offensive.

But what is very troubling is when people begin to treat “hate speech” as unprotected speech. For example, a student leader at Penn State, a university which was recently sued for its unconstitutionally vague and overbroad speech codes, made the following comment featured in a prominent article in the student newspaper The Daily Collegian:

“We support any and all university policies that prohibit intolerant actions against any student on this campus,” said Watson, adding that hate speech was not protected by the constitution. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that a statement like this has been made. This belief has become somewhat pervasive, especially on college campuses, making it high time to put this fundamentally false and dangerous belief to rest.

There is no constitutional exception for so-called hate speech. The First Amendment fully protects speech that some may find offensive, unpopular, or even racist. The First Amendment allows you to wear a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” in a public building (see Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15), yell “We’ll take the fucking street later!” during a protest (see Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105), burn the American flag in protest (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310), and even give a racially charged speech to a restless crowd (see Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1). You can even, consistent with the First Amendment, call for the overthrow of the United States government (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444). This is not a recent development in constitutional law—these cases date back to 1949.<

The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech quite well in Texas v. Johnson, when it held:

The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

Federal courts have consistently followed this holding when applying the First Amendment to public universities. While invalidating sanctions placed on a fraternity for holding an “ugly woman contest,” a federal district court in Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, 993 F.2d 386, held:

The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane.

Furthermore, federal courts have consistently used this concept in striking down college speech codes that regulate offensive or unpopular language (for examples, see Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852, UWM Post, Inc., v. Board of Regents of University of Wisc., 774 F. Supp. 1163, and Bair v. Shippensburg Univ., 280 F. Supp. 2d 357). The law is so consistent that not one college speech code challenged in federal court has ever been left standing.

As you can see, it is settled law that public universities, in order to be consistent with the First Amendment, cannot regulate or suppress speech based upon its content, even when it is offensive, vulgar, profane, or unpopular. A university, especially one run with our tax dollars, should be a marketplace of ideas where open and vigorous discourse is encouraged and not suppressed by crafty speech codes and the threat of disciplinary sanctions.

Make sure to check out FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus for an excellent resource on this subject.

https://www.thefire.org/there-is-no-such-thing-as-hate-speech/

>>9900889

>>9900859

moar

for all the retards on the board

Welcome to Q Research (README FIRST, THEN PROCEED TO LURK)

https://8kun.top/qresearch/welcome.html

For those new to 8kun (Newfags)

We are happy you joined us. However, you need to be aware you are entering a Free Speech board. 99.95% of the internet is tailored to high-civility and/or mainstream speak. The chans are the ONE public forum where uncensored participation is allowed with no barriers to entry. You must understand how precious that is. If you don't, please reflect that Q most certainly does, and that WE made this board what it is. This can make you feel disoriented, because you are probably coming off internet areas where censorship is the jackboot rule of the day, but the reverse is true here. Illegal content and spam is the only exception, and will be removed by a Board Moderator or Global Moderator.

We know it can be tough. There is no one lurking behind the scenes to decide for you what you should see and shouldn't see. It is up to YOU to decide for yourself and look or not look. You will be expected to use your own brain and filter those things you don't wish to see, by not looking at them. Its a very adult concept, but no one is here to make you happy. You do not have a right not to be offended. You do not have a right to be 'comfortable'. Everyone has a guaranteed right to Freedom of Speech. 'Inappropriate', 'offensive,' and 'problematic' are words that do not exist here. YOU are responsible for what YOU look at and how YOU feel about it; NO ONE ELSE IS. You can choose to look or not look, read or not read. If you do read something you don't like, then remove it from behind your eyeballs yourself and move on. It is your fault if you allow a thing you don't like to sit in your head and take root and make you feel offended. We do not care if you are offended. We don't want to hear about it. Do not tell us if you are offended.

Everyone here is anonymous. We care about your ideas and your words and the value of what you say. We value your contributions. We don't care who you are, what your race or gender is, and we do not want to know. The game of identity politics is not played here. Here, we really are equal, and equally anonymous. 8kun is different than the rest of the internet. You will probably feel shell-shocked. We know, that's why we're giving you advice. Steady yourself and hang on to something! And get ready to remember how amazing it is to be master of your own experience.

"

Anonymous ID: abcbc6 July 8, 2020, 8:06 p.m. No.9900918 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>1109

>>9900914

We came here for a reason" -Q

Only marxist nonsense has convinced you that it's okay to enter someone else's space and immediately start demanding they rearrange the furniture to suit you. Be gracious, and recognize you have a lot to learn. LURK! That means read, and read, and read, and don't post until you have good reason to think some people on here might actually wish to read your hot take or lulzy meme. If you aren't contributing in a meaningful way, reconsider your post. If your early attempts donâ€™t get recognition, or get newfag/shill smack-downs, take the note and go back to lurking. Most important, keep up on the notables, read all old crumbs, and post diggs of new research not already discussed on the boards. TThe chit-chat is for anons that have already earned that status via diggs. If that sounds like a lot of work before you get any feels of recognition, welcome to the world where not everyone gets a fucking participation trophy. You'll be glad you joined up though, because when you finally do have something to add, everyone here knows: earned comfy is best comfy.

Be humble. Be patient. That is the foundation of being an effective patriot. Do you imagine Q started out by skipping those steps? Along the way, lurk with agency, study the boards, the bantz, the culture. Track ID's when you're confused who's just a grumpy anon (we're salty autists generally short of patience for shallow stupidity) and who's a shill. If you're confused what the hell everyone's talking about, then Google shit before making an ass of yourself asking the people here. Would you walk into a NASA meeting and ask help with your algebra homework? As for the JQ, if you think we're all anti-semites, research our claims of jewish supremacy in media/gov./finance/entertainment before weighing in. How else do you think we came to our ideas? Do you think Q would choose a collection of idiots who have an ideology of hating people for no reason? If you do, what the hell are you doing here? Remember that /pol/ was here before any of you, and Q came to /pol/, not the other way around.

This is a political research board, a war room, whose occupants likely have a higher-than-average level of intelligence. You have little to teach the anons who work here, but they have much to teach you, if you just LISTEN. You'll hear straight talk and heavy locker room bantz, because high competition spurs excellence. If that's too hard-core for you, take it to Reddit. Don't presume to dull the edge of these warriors; they'll skewer you before they let you interfere with the fighting force they've created. The chans are a boot camp for the mind. Being called faggot is a mark of having submitted to the training. Do you see why Military Q would relate?

There are lots of us here that also care about bringing the general public up to speed, and will step in to help you if you approach things the right way, to save the heavy diggers the hassle, but you have to come in with the right attitude. If you start bossing people around about racism or not having enough love in their hearts, We will all join them in busting your balls. We do it for two reasons: 1) make better anons. 2) get your whiny ass out of the way, because women and children don't belong in a war zone. If you ARE gender-female, then shut the fuck up about it and be an anon. Recognize that the culture of the boards, and of warriors, is metaphysically male. Be glad you can swim anonymously with them if you choose to, but if you want to preach "let's all be gentle day-care workers as is the way of women", then go where the women and children are, and go with our blessing, but understand this is a men's club because that's who founded it. Women and SJW's have claimed every damn corner of the world, but this one is OURS.

Anonymous ID: abcbc6 July 8, 2020, 8:11 p.m. No.9900955 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>0962

>>9900913

baker

mised

>>9900859

goes with

>>9900760 , >>9900768 ), >>9900777 , >>9900782 u), >>9900889 (You) More on 'There’s No Such Thing As Hate Speech'

>>9900760

>>9900859

hecklers veto

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/968/heckler-s-veto

THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA

PRESENTED BY THE JOHN SEIGENTHALER CHAIR OF EXCELLENCE IN FIRST AMENDMENT STUDIES

Heckler's Veto

By Patrick Schmidt

Other articles in Legal Terms and Concepts Related to Speech, Press, Assembly, or Petition

A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speech. Heckler's vetoes have been typically struck down by the Court. In this photo, a literal heckler is apprehended on the platform at New York’s Madison Square Garden in 1939. Fritz Kuhn, National Bund leader, stands on the rostrum, his back turned as he regards the struggle which interrupted his Denunciation of Jews during a stormy Bund rally. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speech. The Supreme Court first recognized the term in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), citing the work of First Amendment expert Harry Kalven Jr., who coined the phrase. The term is also used in general conversation to refer to any incident in which opponents block speech by direct action or by “shouting down” a speaker through protest.

Heckler's veto refers to restrictions on speech inciting hostile reactions

Although some scholars make reference to a string of heckler’s veto cases, the idea appears across a wide range of cases in First Amendment law as a label critical for any claim, made in defense of the government’s suppression, that speech inciting hostile reactions may be restrained.

The offense to audiences and their reactions to expression generally have been important justifications for restrictions on speech. Issues of obscenity and “fighting words” are common examples. The circumstances that raise a heckler’s veto, in which the claim of offense has been viewed with much greater skepticism, can be distinguished in two ways. First, speech protected by raising the heckler’s veto objection is considered to have some value or contribution to public debate, unlike the forms of speech that the Supreme Court has left categorically unprotected. Second, cases involving supposed hecklers’ vetoes usually concern the behavior of crowds, not an impressionable observer or an individual who might be provoked to fight.

Heckler's veto 'doctrine' refers to government's responsiblity to control the crowd

A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech. Yet the larger the opposition grows and the more difficult it is for the government to protect the speaker, the more compelling become the practical considerations in restricting or removing the speaker from the scene.

Terminiello said conviction for speech causing a riot violated the First Amendment

The landmark heckler’s veto case is Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), in which a riot took place outside an auditorium before, during, and after a controversial speech. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for a 5-4 majority, held unconstitutional Arthur Terminiello’s conviction for causing a breach of the peace, noting that speech fulfills “its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”

Just two years later, in Feiner v. New York (1951), the Court nevertheless upheld Irving Feiner’s conviction for causing a breach of the peace, in similar circumstances, after the police asked him three times to stop speaking to a crowd that was growing hostile.

Court has typically found hecklers' vetoes inconsistent with the First Amendment

In general, the core concern with the heckler’s veto is that allowing the suppression of speech because of the discontent of the opponents provides the perverse incentive for opponents to threaten violence rather than to meet ideas with more speech. Thus the Supreme Court has tended to protect the rights of speakers against such opposition in these cases, effectively finding hecklers’ vetoes inconsistent with the First Amendment.

A heckler’s veto occurs when the government accepts restrictions on speech because of the anticipated or actual reactions of opponents of the speech. Heckler's vetoes have been typically struck down by the Court. In this photo, a literal heckler is apprehended on the platform at New York’s Madison Square Garden in 1939. Fritz Kuhn, National Bund leader, stands on the rostrum, his back turned as he regards the struggle which interrupted his Denunciation of Jews during a stormy Bund rally. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Anonymous ID: abcbc6 July 8, 2020, 8:16 p.m. No.9901003 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>1063

>>9900985

>>9900760

>>9900859

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/

THE FREE SPEECH CENTER

FIRST AMENDMENT NEWS AND INSIGHTS FROM MTSU

>>9900985

>>9900760

>>9900699

What is HECKLER'S VETO? What does HECKLER'S VETO mean? HECKLER'S VETO meaning & explanation

890 views•May 17, 2018

https://youtu.be/XXUtUN90jmo

>>9901031

The hecklers veto.

30 views•Mar 10, 2018>>9901031

https://youtu.be/XJ0ePr4Ea8g

Rejecting the ‘heckler’s veto’

by Zach Greenberg

June 14, 2017

One of the most disappointing free speech trends FIRE has seen in recent months and years is the increasing use of violence and other disruptive tactics to silence speakers on college campuses. This form of censorship, where a speaker’s event is canceled due to the actual or potential hostility of ideological opponents, is called the “heckler’s veto.”

The term comes from when a heckler — one seeking to silence a speaker — “vetoes” a speech by severely and substantially disrupting it so that it cannot continue. When a college cancels an event due to the disturbance (or even due to the potential for such a disturbance), the college grants a heckler’s veto to that individual. The term also encompasses situations when a college punishes students or professors for the potential or actual reaction to their expression, such as when it imposes large security fees on student groups for hosting a controversial speaker or revokes a professor’s network access due to complaints about the professor’s online speech.

Let’s first clarify that there is no First Amendment right to shout down a speaker.

If a governmental actor, such a public university, sides with the heckler by canceling the event or refusing to protect the speaker against use of force, it has failed to uphold the speaker’s free speech rights. In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects “[t]hose wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers . . . Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” However, the First Amendment is generally not implicated in situations involving private colleges, and is not as strongly implicated in the case of speakers that come to institutions uninvited or without permission.

This principle was applied to a student in Jones v. Board of Regents (1970), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a university handbill ban after a student was removed from campus when threatened with violence for passing out anti-war handbills. The court stated the public university’s goal should have been “to prevent the infringement of [the student’s] constitutional right by those bent on stifling, even by violence, the peaceful expression of ideas or views with which they disagreed.”

The increasing use of the heckler’s veto is distressing considering that the judiciary has been overruling the heckler’s veto since the Civil Rights Movement, when black protestors were frequently arrested for peacefully occupying segregated areas because their acts unnerved and unsettled onlookers. The Court addressed this practice in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), ruling that the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights may not be curtailed merely because “their critics might react with disorder or violence.”

The heckler’s veto is rooted in the misguided belief that an argument can be defeated by forcefully shutting up its proponents.

On the college campuses of a free society, a viewpoint gains acceptance in the “marketplace of ideas” by the persuasive power of the arguments in support of it, not the physical might of its advocates. Rather than using force to silence a speaker, the answer to speech with which one disagrees is more speech, not violence or censorship.

Unfortunately, many colleges have recently ratified the heckler’s veto by canceling events featuring invited speakers in response to actual or perceived threats of violence or other disruption. In February, the University of California, Berkeley canceled a speech by then-Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos due to fires, injuries, and vandalism caused by rioters. A month later at Vermont’s Middlebury College, a discussion featuring academic and writer Charles Murray was shut down mid-speech when a hostile mob drowned out Murray by chanting throughout his talk. This is in addition to numerous other examples of the heckler’s veto on display on campuses over the years, such as the cancellation of former New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly’s speech at Brown University in 2013 and the university-sponsored disruption of a student play at Washington State University in 2005.

If colleges continue to cancel student-planned speaker events due to the reactions of the speaker’s critics, they will only further encourage the illiberal tactics used to stifle expression on their campuses. By giving the heckler power to veto disfavored speech, colleges teach students that drowning out, shouting down, and assaulting those expressing differing opinions is an acceptable response to speech that they find offensive. Rewarding the bottle thrower by punishing the speaker only leads to more bottle throwers — and fewer speakers.

In order to protect free speech and ensure the safety of their educational communities, universities must clarify that the use of force to silence speech is not an exercise in free speech — it’s censorship. They must inform students that there is nothing liberal or tolerant about robbing their peers of the chance to listen to, learn from, and intellectually engage controversial speakers. They must explain the distinction between thoughtfully adding one’s voice to a discussion and arrogantly deciding what ideas are worthy of discussion in the first place.

To the students seeking to employ the heckler’s veto and the colleges deciding whether to grant it, imagine a world where this practice is morally acceptable. In the words of Council of Women World Leaders co-founder Laura Liswood in The Huffington Post:

How many cartoonists now think twice about their portrayals, not because they are not funny and gratuitous, but because they are now afraid of those who use violence rather than a pen as their means of expression?

I think about the young girls in Afghanistan who don’t go to school because of the violence it might provoke. It is punishing the girls rather than those who are committing illegal acts. . . . One should not be afraid to protest legally in front of an abortion clinic nor be afraid of going into a clinic, or being a doctor providing services because of the potential for violence. Witnesses don’t testify when they fear the results will harm them personally if they do. We anticipate and fear the reaction even though what we are doing is legal and what they are doing is illegal. The heckler wins even if they do nothing.

We become the problem rather than putting the blame where it belongs.

We urge our readers to identify this pernicious form of censorship, speak out against it, and deny the heckler the power to veto speech.

Take a stand for free speech over mob censorship by rejecting the heckler’s veto once and for all.

>>9901096

flipped now

>The increasing use of the heckler’s veto is distressing considering that the judiciary has been overruling the heckler’s veto since the Civil Rights Movement, when black protestors were frequently arrested for peacefully occupying segregated areas because their acts unnerved and unsettled onlookers. The Court addressed this practice in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), ruling that the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights may not be curtailed merely because “their critics might react with disorder or violence.”

>>9901094

kek

my dad has uses this

for decades

he is in his 80's

>>9901123

make this a reality

>>9901028

this kid is seriously just a weirdo

just looking at him i can tell i would not agree with him