Hate Speech

Joy Behar Has No Idea What the ACLU Does or That Hate Speech Is Protected Under the First Amendment

Donald Trump is far from the only person who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights.

|

There are many, many ways a concerned American could respond to the repulsively racist and nativist "Send her back!" chant at President Donald Trump's rally last night in Greenville, N.C., during which the crowd cheered for the forceful removal from the U.S. of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), a Somali-born American citizen.

Joy Behar of The View, who is in many ways a professional journalist, somehow managed to articulate one of the least informed responses.

The ladies of The View started their show today by unanimously expressing contempt for the behavior at Trump's rally. Then Behar asks, "Why can't he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can't he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don't get it. How does he get away with this?"

In the clip, available here at The Hill, you can nearly hear co-host Sunny Hostin start to explain something about hate speech, but then co-host Megan McCain introduces a new clip.

For the benefit of Behar and other Americans asking themselves the same question, here is why Trump cannot be brought up on charges of hate speech:

  • "Hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yelling for Omar to go back to Somalia (or to be forcibly sent to Somalia) is gross, but falls under free speech protections as an opinion.
  • In the event we did have laws against "hate speech," they'd be enforced by the government, not by the ACLU. Given that Trump runs the branch of government that would enforce such laws, and that he regularly declares the media to be the "enemy of the people," we should be reassured, not upset, that there is no law against "hate speech."
  • The ACLU opposes laws against hate speech. In the free speech position paper on their site, the ACLU explains that "we should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is 'the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.'"

And an aside to Joe Concha and The Hill: When somebody like Behar says something obviously inaccurate like this, feel free to use your platform and your journalism skills to help her understand how the First Amendment works. After all, it's why you and I have jobs.

Advertisement

NEXT: San Francisco Has Ditched Its Dumb 'IPO Tax' (For Now)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hate is what you proffer everyday Joy. But like early Europeans you think the Native Americans are savages and bitter clingers.

  2. Joy Behar is the village idiot from Hell.

    1. She’s the greatest threat to freedom since the Winklevoss’ invented Facebook.

      1. You mean stole it from Chris Hughs.

  3. And an aside to Joe Concha and The Hill: When somebody like Behar says something obviously inaccurate like this, feel free to use your platform and your journalism skills to help her understand how the First Amendment works. After all, it’s why you and I have jobs.

    Joe Concha has journalism skills??

  4. I think it’s cute that the author thinks the ACLU is anything but another arm of the progressive branch of the Democrat party.

    1. Put them on the list with Google, Facebook, Hollyweird, and the rest of the libs WE MUST DEFEAT!

    2. The ACLU has historically been one of few outspoken legal defendants of the Constitution so they deserve some praise (yes I understand that they __________ and I don’t condone it but we can be nuanced here)

      1. Nuance is for cucks.

        1. Your ideas intrigue me

      2. Key word… historically. Now do the same statements with contemporary instead.

        1. Well, their stated First amendment positions are still pretty good. I don’t see the problem acknowledging it.
          And it’s a pretty good response to Behar that even the ACLU, who she thought would be the right group to go after hate speech for some reason, and which is a pretty leftist group, knows that the first amendment means what it says.

      3. Nuance is perfectly fine. We can acknowledge that they have done decent work in the past. But these days not so much. They are a leftist org now.

      4. Except for that pesky Second Amendment which the ACLU has pretty much always pretended didn’t exist.

      5. The ACLU’s apparently principled stand was likely strategic. You see that commonly with the left, where they support liberalism and freedom when they are out of power and become increasingly totalitarian as they gain power.

    3. I don’t think the author told us whether or not he things the ACLU is an arm of the progressive branch of the Democratic party.
      In any case, so what? They still take the positions they take and in this case they are quite correct. I don’t care what they are, they still deserve credit when they get things right (and they often do).

      1. They don’t “get things right”, they take positions based on what advances their agenda. Leftists frequently take positions that contradict their principles when it advances their overall agenda.

  5. Nobody takes any of these harpies seriously nor should reason.

    1. How do they stay on TV? Somebody takes them seriously.

      1. The number of people who like their political and social analysis in bumper sticker bites and hot takes is…well, legion. Read the WaPo comment section. The simple-mindedness matches, and may exceed, the simple-mindedness they claim to find on Town Hall or Fox.

        So yeah, they’ve got an audience. Depressing as that is.

  6. >>>who is in many ways a professional journalist

    dude you want her in your corral have at it.

    1. ya beat me to it.

  7. Joy Behar of The View, who is in many ways a professional journalist…

    I admit to initially wondering why The Hill was reporting on this at all, but I forgot that these people have interviewed presidents and presidential candidates. This show influences viewers (I assume).

    1. It’s made Meghan McCain meaningful.

      1. She also has meaning in having prevented any criticism of her father from appearing on The Federalist which was genuinely conspicuous by its absence given the editorial staff’s general attitudes toward RINOs.

  8. I pointed my phone at the View using an Old Age filter app, accidently grabbing Joy upskirt which then showed on my screen a Quarter-Pound Arby’s Roast Beef and Cheese.

    1. Remember when crusty had jokes like this, instead of only lame ass, unfunny, butthurt attempts at sarcasm?
      I mean, I don’t – but from context, I assume some do

      1. I don’t see a difference between Old Crusty and the new one but he seemed to have went on haitus and I’ve only seen a few of his new posts.

  9. Joy Betard

    1. Sorrow Behar

  10. Wow, that’s dumb. And she even grew up when people would still say “it’s a free country”. Has she really never heard of the ACLU defending Illinois Nazis or other hateful speakers?

    1. I don’t anyone outside of Skokie, and probably half inside, even remember that.

    2. I hate Illinois Nazis

      1. I hate all nazis because I don’t discriminate like that. Racist.

  11. For a compelling argument that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment, I recommend Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky’s piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

    #LibertariansAgainstHateSpeech

    1. Exactly! Which is why we need to start enforcing the Communist Control Act. Promoting communism raises my blood pressure and anyone who publicly supports a philosophy that argues for the overthrow of Western democracy should be imprisoned.

    2. OK, I read it. It’s crap.

      “For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans. Similarly, according to research by Claude Steele at Cornell, negative stereotypes affect African-American self-perception, and can lead to lower test scores.”

      Really? You expect us to sacrifice a fundamental right because some people “may” get high blood pressure? Stupid arguments against my rights give me high blood pressure. People get upset when they hear things they don’t like, so what? Grow up.

      Lower test scores? Don’t blame Nazis for your failure to study.

      “Were the U.S. to properly recognize the danger of hate speech, we wouldn’t look like Orwell’s “1984.” Instead, Delgado told me, we’d “look like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada or Sweden, all of whom regulate hate speech but where the political climate is just as free and healthy as our own, if not more so.”

      The citizens of those countries don’t have the right to free speech, they have a limited privilege of free speech that’s granted to them by their governments. What their overlords giveth they can taketh away.

      Hate speech isn’t just Nazis and racists ranting about white supremacy, it’s also any speech the liberals don’t like. Seriously, who gets to define “hate speech”?

      1. And, arguably, those “hate” speech laws allowed/caused (contributed to?) thousands of young girls to be taken into sex slavery in Rotherham

      2. Lower test scores? Don’t blame Nazis for your failure to study.

        Well, “the dog ate my homework” is a bit worn out.

    3. Wow. That’s one fucktarded fucktard:
      “Were the U.S. to properly recognize the danger of hate speech, we wouldn’t look like Orwell’s “1984.” Instead, Delgado told me, we’d “look like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada or Sweden, all of whom regulate hate speech but where the political climate is just as free and healthy as our own, if not more so.””

      He hasn’t looked. He’s treating those countries as dog-whistles to liberal drones, with no thought, observation or analysis involved. And Berlatsky just laps it up. *sad honk*

  12. Joy Behar Has No Idea What the ACLU Does or That Hate Speech Is Protected Under the First Amendment

    1. Thank you for that

    2. “Why can’t he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”

      I honestly never heard of this person before this. Does she, perhaps, think it’s her job to try to make women look ignorant? Geeez…..

      1. You’d think that on the show that’s supposed to be all about powerful women they would want to get someone who has a fucking clue.

        1. Ya think? 🙂

        2. They looked through many binders, this is the best America has to offer.

          1. Intelligence was a disqualifying factor.

        3. Maybe it’s to make regular (non-media) women feel good.
          “Dang! I’m smarter than those women, and they’ve got a TV show! Maybe I can be anything I want!”

  13. I agree the chat was repulsive and nativist. But was it racist? In what way? Come on Scott, fill me in on how it’s racist.

    That word is losing its meaning.

    1. Oh dude, “explanation”?? Making an actual argument? Oh sweet summer child…It’s box-checkin’ time at Reason buddy!! Jerk them knees! Whistle that dog!!

  14. There are many, many ways a concerned American could respond to the repulsively racist and nativist “Send her back!” chant at President Donald Trump’s rally
    Oh Fuck off. The chant was directed at one person, a politician, and they should get it in spades. Ooops! Was that repulsively racist of me?

    1. I don’t buy the racist angle. But I do believe there is something un-American and generally distasteful about calling for an American citizen to be sent back where they came from.

      1. Free speech is very American and until someone actually tries to send her back I wont worry about it. What’s very worrying is setting up censorship rules for protected classes, women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT etc., particularly here.

        1. No, I don’t think it’s the end of the world and we aren’t about to start deporting citizens. I’m not worried about that as an immediate danger. But I don’t like what it says about the political culture.

          1. High or Low Political Culture?

            LOL

      2. He didn’t ask for anybody to be sent back, he told them to voluntarily spend time in the culture they claim to identify with.

    1. LOL. Exactly. I had to ask my wife. She told me most folks she knows, who she is, call her “Joy Butthair” Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  15. I can now honestly say “Oh, Joy…”, without it representing my false enthusiasm. Now it represents my true pity for her ignorance.

  16. “Why can’t he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”

    I honestly never heard of this person before this. Does she, perhaps, think it’s her job to try to make women look ignorant? Geeez…..

  17. Is this article the equivalent of getting paid to post overly long comments on reason?

    Where is my check?

  18. If hate speech were actually a crime, would the folks who malign Trump, his wife, and his family be eligible for prosecution, and would Trump’s DOJ prosecute?

    Be careful what you wish for.

  19. […] on social media ridiculed Behar for her comments, but Scott Shackford of Reason.com offered an explanation for why the president could not be charged with “hate speech,” […]

  20. Behar and company know what the First Amendment protects, but the point of social justice warriors to create the illusion of a new social norm. That’s why everyone who thinks the First Amendment still matter is so cray cray! That’s why people smile when Trump refuses to play along, too.

  21. “I have a dream that my little squad of four will one day live in a nation where
    they will not be allowed to be judged by the content of their character because of the color of their skin.”
    -Mohammed Luther King

  22. […] on social media ridiculed Behar for her comments, but Scott Shackford of Reason.com offered an explanation for why the president could not be charged with “hate speech,” […]

  23. How was that chant racist?

  24. Hey Reason this chick is a complete fraud. Her real name is Elmi. Do a story about that.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/david-steinberg-tying-up-loose-threads-in-the-curious-case.php

    1. Taxfraudmi Elmi?

  25. […] on social media ridiculed Behar for her comments, but Scott Shackford of Reason.com offered an explanation for why the president could not be charged with “hate speech,” […]

  26. Omar has earned the slings and arrows through her own words. Speech–free, and wonderfully so–can have consequences.

  27. Dumb bitch is dumb: Film at 11
    AM every morning

  28. Send her/him back could be applied to everyone in congress nothing racist about and legal under certain conditions

  29. racist and nativist “Send her back!” chant

    I am pretty sure it was rhetorical. And it has been disavowed by Trump. The point is that people believe she is ungrateful. (and anti-Semitic, generally holds un/anti-American views, etc.)

    Joy Behar of The View, who is in many ways a professional journalist, somehow managed to articulate one of the least informed responses.

    Joy Behar said something wholly ill-formed, incorrect and, franky, retarded? *faints*

    1. “Why can’t he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”

      Wow. As someone familiar with the fact that Behar is prone to abject stupidity, this is next level.

  30. I’m not sure if Behar actually looked at the footage of the rally, but Trump didn’t say “send her back”; the crowd did. There was his earlier tweet of course but that isn’t quite what he said in the tweet.

    Chants by crowds tend to be simplistic “four legs good, two legs bad” type stuff.

    1. crowds tend to be simplistic

      But that kind of honest analysis does not fit the narrative.

  31. Scott, apparently it comes as a shock to you, but Joy Behar is a rich, entitled, ignorant idiot. So: what rock have you been living under?

  32. Remember when racism used to mean a belief of superiority and wasn’t a meaningless, blanket insult used whenever we criticize non-whites?

    I like how everyone is peddling this bullshit narrative that “send her back” was based on race and nationality and not the fact that:
    1. Media cannot be trusted
    2. Omar is currently being investigated for marriage, immigration and tax fraud

    Just like those Trump boomers who love Q, there’s always a tinge of alternative media in these rallies because these people have no good reason to trust mainstream media. They got ahead of themselves, but just like a lot of other things, they may very well have been correct. If Omar did in fact marry her brother and lie about her family and names in order to obtain citizenship, she can be stripped of it and deported to Somalia.

    But hey, let’s just ignore all those murky facts and assert that it MUST have been about race and not her shitty, offensive ideas, support for Marxism, and blatant anti-Semitism.

    1. I saw a poll earlier this week that had about a third of Democrats believing that any criticism of any minority by any white person was racist. These idiots actually believe this bullshit.

    2. So it’s the media’s fault that thousands of Trump rally participants shouted “send her back” about an American citizen. Nice.

      Is there anything for which Trump, or his supporters, should be held accountable for? Or is every bad thing they do the fault of “the Left” in some way?

      1. Well yes, it is the media’s fault. If she did in fact obtain her citizenship illegally, then they shouldn’t be telling her to go back to her own country because this is it. However, the media is at fault for not actually interviewing someone. Did they mean Somalia? Did they mean Minnesota? Or did they simply mean it as “if you love socialist shitholes so much, go shit that up instead of here”? Has the media done anything to investigate these allegations of fraud? Because if she did in fact commit fraud, then she should lose her citizenship and be deported. And if you think that isn’t enough suspicion to start chanting send her back, then it’s still the fault of the media for being so dishonest that people believe conclusions based on incomplete, non-media approved information.

        These are the sorts of questions you and everyone else needs to ask of the people themselves before ascribing intent. Nobody is asking because nobody really cares. It’s just propaganda. The real question is why they’re trying to distract us and from what.

        1. *if she did in fact obtain her citizenship legally

        2. Also nativism != racism

      2. “Thousands”? ????

      3. How exactly do you want to hold people accountable for criticising a socialist asshole? Do tell. Fines? Labor camps? Exile?

      4. I can express the sentiment that someone who willingly comes to this country should leave if they find it as awful, oppressive and without redeeming qualities as Omar finds the US.

        Please note that in response to my statement, ICE did NOT gear up in SWAT gear and head for Dearborn. (but they should)

  33. Yet another reason I’ve never watched the View.

    Having never watched it, I don’t know what’s it’s about. But my guess is that it’s a bunch of dumb women trying desperately to validate the stereotype of dumb women.

    1. Bullseye!

    2. I’ve seen snippets.

      It’s even worse than that,

      It’s where independent thought is tortured and killed.

  34. Then Behar asks, “Why can’t he be brought up on charges of hate speech? Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”

    And Behar has a law degree!! I don’t know if it’s a J.D. or an MRS, but she does have a law degree.

  35. Joy has precious few ideas of any kind, and the ones she does have do her no credit.

  36. […] on social media ridiculed Behar for her comments, but Scott Shackford of Reason.com offered an explanation for why the president could not be charged with “hate speech,” […]

  37. […] on social media ridiculed Behar for her comments, but Scott Shackford of Reason.com offered an explanation for why the president could not be charged with “hate speech,” […]

  38. […] No one objected to Behar’s absurd statement. Here’s Reason.com stating the obvious: […]

  39. […] No one objected to Behar’s absurd statement. Here’s Reason.com stating the obvious: […]

  40. […] Donald Trump isn’t far from the only person who doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights.Read More […]

  41. […] There are many, many ways a concerned American could respond to the repulsively racist and nativist “Send her back!” chant at President Donald Trump’s rally last night in Greenville, N.C., during which the crowd cheered for the forceful removal from the U.S. … Read More […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.