THIS is Why I Love Freedom of Speech...

Shannon Sharpe

No...it's NOT what Shannon Sharpe said, but that he could use that freedom to expose himself and those protesting the U.S. flag and our National Anthem in such a clear, yet vile way.

Sure, I liked Shannon Sharpe a lot better BEFORE I saw this window into his bigoted heart, and yes, I was more comfortable NOT knowing he held such views, but I want bigots black, white and other, to out themselves. It's vital information to have.

This is an important clip because it shows you...the "fan," buying the tickets, the caps and jerseys, tuning in each Sunday...to guys, a LOT of whom, hold views exactly like this.

Are you tired of rich, highly priveleged men like this spitting in your faces?

An 18% REPORTED decline in ticket sales last week, Direct TV reporting many taking them up on their refund offer over "NFL Sunday Ticket"...has been nothing more than "a pretty good start."

If you didn't catch it, what Shannon Sharpe actually said was "F*ck America."

NOW would be a very good time for America to use IT'S freedom of speech to say, "F*ck Shannon Sharpe...AND F*CK the NFL!"

Amazing! Not even a year ago, NO ONE would've believed that globalism/One Worldism could have fallen so far, so fast.

This NFL debacle has allowed the Nationalists to equate Nationalism with being "PRO-American," and Globalism/One Worldism with being ANTI-American"!

It really is unbelievable!

Thank you Shannon Sharpe for showing everyone the true face behind the NFL protests.

Whooops! He DID It....Again!

Maybe Donald Trump really is is a superhero! He seems to have the power to offend, even drive Leftists/"progressives" insane by merely opening his mouth.

Yesterday's "offense" was saying, "Wouldn't it be great, the next time one of these athletes takes a knee during the Anthem that one of the owners says, 'Get outta here, you're fired! Wouldn't that be great?"

Well, a LOT of people would see that as "great."

Many others wouldn't.

Some Americans are appalled, mostly because they don't really understand the 1st Amendment. That's kind of sad, them being Americans and all, but it says far more about the sad state of education in our country, than anything else.

The 1st Amendment ONLY protects us from government censure, that's the government outlawing any specific speech.

Radio hosts have (rightly) been fired for views an outlet worries "reflect badly on the station."

Hell, Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was fired over telling the truth about NYC's sordid #7 subway line.

It's NOT OK for any of us to condone views we agree with and support condemning and sanctioning those we don't like.

The 1st Amendment was specifically put in place to protect unpopular, controversial, offensive speech; That of Communists, Nazis, KKKers & Black Panthers alike...from government action.

Trump's a bombastic guy, by design. It's worked for him. He says what lots of people feel and he validates those views by often putting them across directly, even crudely.

In this case, he DID NOT even threaten any government action. He speculated, "Wouldn't it be great IF..."

That was speculation/personal opinion, NOT a threat of any government action, nor even a suggestion. IF any POTUS threatened to force an industry to fire workers for their views, THAT would violate the 1st Amendment. This opinion does not.

YES, however, a company CAN choose to fire a member of NAMBLA (a pro pedophile group), a Nazi, or a black panther, if that status is public, or known, for "Representing that company in a damaging light." Such views hamper commerce and misrepresent a company.

Police, firefighters, teachers and most other workers (private & public) CANNOT protest, or make political statements at work...and rightly so. Doing so misrepresents the non-partisan nature of the Municipalities &/or companies they represent.

In my view, professional athletes should be held to THAT same standard. Off duty, or in their personal lives, they can champion any cause they wish. On the field, they're paid to work...like the rest of us.

HOWEVER, the NFL, which has fined Marshon Lynch for wearing a non-NFL approved cap during Super Bowl week interviews a few years back, banned flag decals and 9/11 decals, etc seems to have no problem with these workplace protests, so fans SHOULD BE mad at the NFL primarily.

It's also untrue, as some have suggested, that filing a complaint against a criminal act (ie. harassment, etc) in the workplace, is "the same as" protesting a social issue.

No, they're two very different things.

A company has a right to demand its workers represent it in the exact way that they want, INCLUDING refraining from getting into political/religious dialogue with clients.

The 1st Amendment protects us from government sanction, but companies can fire "at will" (which is all who aren't Civil Service protected) employees for ANY reason, or no reason at all.

So a person who fervently believes that age of consent laws are arbitrary and capricious and supports what we call pedophilia, can be fired "merely for verbally, or in writing, standing up for what they believe in."

A company is within their rights NOT to want to be associated with such controversy. They could...and I assure you, most WOULD do the same with a skinhead/KKKer, or a Black Panther, as well.

The 1st Amendment doesn't protect people from the legitimate consequences of such views....EXCEPT from government overtly criminalizing such views.

That's all the protections the 1st Amendment gives us.

Freedom of SPEECH...YES, it Remains More Vital Than Ever...

Lincoln Restler's Family

A "Senior aide" To Mayor Bill DeBlasio (Lincoln Restler) is under fire for an offensive tweet...a photo of his parents and sister holding signs...his sister's especially racist and egregious. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944548/Senior-Bill-Blasio-aide-fire-posting-photo-smiling-sister-pro-immigration-rally-holding-f-whiteness-sign.html)

Still, calls for him to be punished, even fired are troubling to me.

Mr. Restler has every right to his opinions. Those who don't like them, shouldn't vote for this administration down the road, BUT our 1st Amendment exists SPECIFICALLY to defend/protect unpopular, controversial, even hateful ideas and speech. No other ones need such protection.

Lincoln Restler first deleted that tweet, then took his Twitter Acct down, but in reality that photo resonates extremely negatively with anyone opposed to racial bigotry and small-mindedness.

In short, that photo has done more to help any future DeBlasio foe than it did to galvanize it's intended anti-white racist base.

Regardless, I support the 1st Amendment, and so, I support it for ALL. No ideas are "off limits." The Communist should no more be sanctioned then the Nazi, the white supremacist no more sanctioned than the black supremacist.

THAT'S what "supporting the 1st Amendment" really means.
.

Chris Cuomo and the Widespread Misunderstanding of Freedom of Expression

CNN's Chris Cuomo

Everyone makes mistakes....and if you talk for a living you'll undoubtedly "misspeak" from time to time.

CNN's Chris Cuomo (the SAME CNN host who once described one of the French “Charlie Hebdo terrorists” as “African-American”), however attended Law School AND makes his living as a TV Commentator, so you'd expect him to have at least a cursory understanding AND a broad support for the 1st Amendment...BUT apparently that's NOT the case, at least not for those who disagree with the views of Chris Cuomo.

In the wake of the unprovoked jihadist attack in Garland, Texas, Chris Cuomo tweeted out, “Read the 1st Amendment, hate speech is excluded from protection.”

Funny story, the 1^st Amendment DOES NOT mention “hate speech,” moreover, “hate speech,” insulting speech and deliberately offensive speech are ALL protected by that 1^st Amendment.

Worse yet, his petulant “clarification” actually amplified his error; “For last time (today), I didn't mean the language of 1A, I meant the case law. And hate speech has been protected except for fighting words.”

FIRST, that’s NOT a retraction, which is required in this case, because what he initially said was unfounded and in error. SECOND, “fighting words” and “hate speech” are two different things, actually “fighting words” can be considered a very small and narrowly defined sub-strata of “hate speech.”

In 1949 the Supreme Court created the “hate speech doctrine” with the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision, when it ruled;

“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

That very doctrine is incredibly flawed. We DO NOT outlaw insulting speech, or "obscene," or "lewd" speech...those leave far too much to interpretation. The majority of Americans (I believe something like 82% of Americans oppose race/gender-based preferences) are "insulted" by pro-preference speech.

But even THAT doctrine is far from settled, as the ACLU, among other organizations have consistently fought against it. Back in 2007, the ACLU filed a “Friend of the Court” brief on behalf of an Oregon man (William Charles Johnson) who’d been charged under Oregon’s “fighting words” statutes for using his truck’s PA system to shout anti-gay slurs at two women who’d cut him off in their car.

Apparently Chris Cuomo hasn’t kept up with the case law on that very controversial doctrine. It appears we’re all going to get a lesson in how illegal criminalizing political and disagreeable speech really is, as the Wisconsin “John Doe Investigations” into Governor Scott Walker’s relationship with the Club for Growth and other “Right-wing” groups is not only going to be shot down, there will apparently be some very strong and negative repercussions for those who brought those investigations...and their SHOULD BE.

What’s more troubling is the hideous optic that all this media cravenness creates. Chris Cuomo and company expressed little, if any outrage over Andres Seranno’s “Piss Christ,” and Cuomo is allegedly a Roman Catholic. In fact, CNN, like the rest of America’s national media seemed to celebrate Serrano’s work.

Given that, Chris Cuomo and his ilk’s reticence at offending jihadist Muslims appears to be entirely motivated by little more than abject cowardice, otherwise they’d have exhibited a clear-cut consistency on the subject of offending religious observers.

The fact that Cuomo and others reflexively offered no sympathy for the intended victim of this very effectively thwarted terror attack is even more troubling, as that too smacks of a deep and abiding moral cowardice.

The fact that Cuomo and many of his national media brethren continue to assail Pam Geller as an “anti-Muslim bigot,” is also quizzical, considering that Ms. Geller has made abundantly clear that her ONLY opposition is to “jihadist Muslims.” Jihadist Muslims are those devoted to imposing Sharia Law (“political Islam”) on the rest of the world. THAT is NOT an opposition to or bigotry toward Islam (the religion), it is an opposition to a nefarious political ideology that stemmed from a perversion of that religion, called “Jihadism” or “political Islam.”

So, is Cuomo and his ilk so utterly ignorant on that issue, or is it that they actually sympathize with its anti-American and anti-Western agenda?

It would appear that it’s the former, as he seems blissfully unaware of the FACT that many Arab-Muslims stand with pam Geller’s anti-Sharia, anti-Jihadist movement, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born American activist, writer, and politician. She is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation, political Islam and supportive of women's rights), Irshad Manji (a Canadian author, educator at New York University, and advocate of a "reformist" interpretation of Islam) and Brigitte Gabriel (an American author and activist who teaches that political Islam keeps countries backward, and that it teaches terrorism.

Given that, WHY are Chris Cuomo and others who are so obviously ignorant and misinformed on the issue commenting on it for a living?

Yeah, I know, he comments on 1^st Amendment law, apparently without knowing much about that, either.

Kind of goes to the sad state of America’s media, doesn’t it?

The Garland Texas Incident Shows How Very LITTLE Many Americans Understand About Freedom of Expression

Pam Geller

In the immediate wake of the shooting deaths of two jihadists outside a garland, Texas “Draw a Picture of Mohammad” contest, the most striking thing was the outpouring of ignorance over what IS, and what IS NOT “free speech.” (See the comments section here; http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pamela-geller-battles-cnns-camerota-over-garland-shooting-why-is-media-targeting-us/#comment-2002300335)

In fact, the 1^st Amendment was written SOLELY to protect controversial, offensive, bigoted, rebellious speech. Pablum (agreeable speech) NEEDS no such protections.

YES, Pamela Geller’s contest was covered under the 1^st Amendment.

NO, it was NOT “baiting,” nor was it “reckless” (“crying fire in a crowded movie theater”) speech, nor even “hate speech,” which are also, by the way, protected by the 1^st Amendment.

To the charge that Ms. Geller “baited Muslim extremists”; SO WHAT?!

No more than Andres Serrano “baited” Christians with his art work “Piss Christ.

BOTH are protected under the 1^st Amendment.

It’s the SAME with ALL opinions and views. The ONLY reason pro-gay speech is permitted, is because the SAME Amendment that protects anti-gay speech exists.

Opinions are never “right,” or “wrong,” and because of that basic truth, ALL opinions must be protected.

Religious views are merely “opinions”...ALL of them.

Now, it can be argued that views like “Lowered standards in the Military and in the Emergency Services reduces the quality of the workforce and results in a variety of public safety problems,” that are backed up by facts, are NOT mere “opinions,” BUT those who disagree ARE still permitted to voice their own opinions on the matter.

Sadly, the outpouring of ignorance was NOT limited to some commenters on various websites. CNN directly challenged Ms. Geller’s speech as “overly provocative,” and FNC’s Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Susteren did the very same thing.

THAT’S a problem!

When so many media “talking heads” show how little THEY understand the essence of FREE EXPRESSION, it’s little wonder why so many “fans” are...a might confused.