Don’t forget, pro-free speech when speech equals monetary contribution to political candidates. “Free speech” is a phrase that the right wing uses to further its own goals and to prevent common citizens from exercising their rights.
We all agree free speech must be protected. It is not clear to me why you voted to honor an individual that espoused hate toward black and brown people, LBGTQ+ people, Jewish people, and women. Did you submit a proclamation to honor the children that have been gunned down in schools? Or one to honor Melissa Hartman and her husband? I am so disgusted and disappointed with your hypocrisy.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the 1919 case Schenck v. U.S. was: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in FALSLY shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic." This statement illustrates his "clear and present danger" test for free speech, which holds that speech is not protected if it creates an immediate risk of harm. However, this quote is a frequently misunderstood analogy, as the actual case concerned anti-draft flyers during wartime, not fires or theaters. The "clear and present danger" test has been refined into the "incitement to imminent lawless action" standard, primarily established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This new, more protective standard states that speech advocating for illegal action can only be restricted if it is intended to, and likely will, incite imminent lawless action
I am disgusted that you chose to support the resolution to honor Charlie Kirk. We can concurrently support free speech and condemn political violence without honoring a racist, misogynist hate-monger. I am a constituent and you will never, ever get my vote.
I appreciate seeing others speak out on Auchincloss’s capitulation to the right wing. I remember how hotly contested his seat was in the initial primary when Kennedy vacated it to run for senate. We don’t have to accept someone who makes excuses for the right wing.
Good job. IMHO, over the years, the right has turned into the thought police: if you don't think like us, you're not a real American and you will burn in the fires of hell. Banning, or at least severely limiting, free speech by their opponents is how to enforce agreement or the appearance of it. It's also the best way to defeat them (us). With despot Trump at the wheel, the MAGA minions now have permission to act out, along with him, their darkest authoritarian fantasies. We must successfully defend free speech, without fear or favor, or watch our democracy burn to the ground.
Keep going, Jake. I believe in you and your spot on mission. Your access to all possible platforms needs to expand until most Americans have had a chance to hear your ideas. I wish you were the Speaker, could corral a new Democratic party of authentic activists, not afraid to take on the big issues and big interests as you have. We need fresh air, fresh thoughts, fresh strategies, a leader who can get us there. That's you.
These are all financially driven decisions. These media companies are afraid of this government and are willing to sacrifice free speech for their bottom line! It's a disgusting shame and they should so be ashamed of themselves!
I had to stop reading your piece halfway through to correct you on the law. Case law on the first amendment doesn’t say that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater. This is a very common misquotation of the Supreme Court case of Schenk v US (1919):
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
The key phrases are “falsely shouting fire” and “causing a panic.” Simply shouting fire in a crowded theater does not get around 1st Amendment protections
Besides, that First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. In that case, the Supreme Court held 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."
You voted on a resolution to commemorate this man’s life, despite the hateful and violent rhetoric he committed his life to. Words alone are not violence, but the people inspired by Kirk’s message often perpetrated acts of violence, exclusion, and hatred. To act as though violence is not what the right calls for on a regular basis is excusing their actions. No one has to condone violence to agree that Kirk was a man who spread hate and bigotry, and that he spent his career advocating for wider access to guns and their use in silencing those with whom he disagreed.
Also: I think your final comment shows a lack of awareness for the fact that the right is actively trying to dictate the content of libraries. The role of choosing what goes on the libraries’ shelves should not fall to the general public, nor to government officials.
I also honor those who actually are for free speech like Kirk, but in the next breath abhor those that manipulate that all-American right into inspiring the hate of "others" (makes me want the throw up!). Yes, I have seen life on both sides, so can understand your stance that we can and must do both now.
News flash - MAGA has always been the party of cancel culture. They were never pro-free speech - just pro THEIR free speech.
Don’t forget, pro-free speech when speech equals monetary contribution to political candidates. “Free speech” is a phrase that the right wing uses to further its own goals and to prevent common citizens from exercising their rights.
Yep. Hollow, meaningless and all abouit the money.
We all agree free speech must be protected. It is not clear to me why you voted to honor an individual that espoused hate toward black and brown people, LBGTQ+ people, Jewish people, and women. Did you submit a proclamation to honor the children that have been gunned down in schools? Or one to honor Melissa Hartman and her husband? I am so disgusted and disappointed with your hypocrisy.
What vote are you referring to?
House Resolution 719. I’m not sure if I can link to articles in the comments, but it was last week.
The exact quote by
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the 1919 case Schenck v. U.S. was: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in FALSLY shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic." This statement illustrates his "clear and present danger" test for free speech, which holds that speech is not protected if it creates an immediate risk of harm. However, this quote is a frequently misunderstood analogy, as the actual case concerned anti-draft flyers during wartime, not fires or theaters. The "clear and present danger" test has been refined into the "incitement to imminent lawless action" standard, primarily established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This new, more protective standard states that speech advocating for illegal action can only be restricted if it is intended to, and likely will, incite imminent lawless action
I am disgusted that you chose to support the resolution to honor Charlie Kirk. We can concurrently support free speech and condemn political violence without honoring a racist, misogynist hate-monger. I am a constituent and you will never, ever get my vote.
I appreciate seeing others speak out on Auchincloss’s capitulation to the right wing. I remember how hotly contested his seat was in the initial primary when Kennedy vacated it to run for senate. We don’t have to accept someone who makes excuses for the right wing.
Good job. IMHO, over the years, the right has turned into the thought police: if you don't think like us, you're not a real American and you will burn in the fires of hell. Banning, or at least severely limiting, free speech by their opponents is how to enforce agreement or the appearance of it. It's also the best way to defeat them (us). With despot Trump at the wheel, the MAGA minions now have permission to act out, along with him, their darkest authoritarian fantasies. We must successfully defend free speech, without fear or favor, or watch our democracy burn to the ground.
Keep going, Jake. I believe in you and your spot on mission. Your access to all possible platforms needs to expand until most Americans have had a chance to hear your ideas. I wish you were the Speaker, could corral a new Democratic party of authentic activists, not afraid to take on the big issues and big interests as you have. We need fresh air, fresh thoughts, fresh strategies, a leader who can get us there. That's you.
Spot on, as always!
These are all financially driven decisions. These media companies are afraid of this government and are willing to sacrifice free speech for their bottom line! It's a disgusting shame and they should so be ashamed of themselves!
Hello
I had to stop reading your piece halfway through to correct you on the law. Case law on the first amendment doesn’t say that you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater. This is a very common misquotation of the Supreme Court case of Schenk v US (1919):
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
The key phrases are “falsely shouting fire” and “causing a panic.” Simply shouting fire in a crowded theater does not get around 1st Amendment protections
Besides, that First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. In that case, the Supreme Court held 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."
Thank you for your attention to this matter
You voted on a resolution to commemorate this man’s life, despite the hateful and violent rhetoric he committed his life to. Words alone are not violence, but the people inspired by Kirk’s message often perpetrated acts of violence, exclusion, and hatred. To act as though violence is not what the right calls for on a regular basis is excusing their actions. No one has to condone violence to agree that Kirk was a man who spread hate and bigotry, and that he spent his career advocating for wider access to guns and their use in silencing those with whom he disagreed.
Also: I think your final comment shows a lack of awareness for the fact that the right is actively trying to dictate the content of libraries. The role of choosing what goes on the libraries’ shelves should not fall to the general public, nor to government officials.
I also honor those who actually are for free speech like Kirk, but in the next breath abhor those that manipulate that all-American right into inspiring the hate of "others" (makes me want the throw up!). Yes, I have seen life on both sides, so can understand your stance that we can and must do both now.