MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

CNN Anchor Says Constitution Doesn’t Protect Hate Speech, Try Reading It. Okay, Let’s Do That.

Spoiler: Hate speech actually is protected.

Chris Cuomo is co-host of CNN’s morning show. He’s also a former law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He has a law degree from Fordham University and is a licensed attorney. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is his brother.

In other words, this is somebody you’d expect would know what he’s talking about on the subject of basic constitutional facts. And yet:

CuomoTwitter

This was in response to the shooting outside Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest event in Garland, Texas. According to Cuomo, Geller and her ilk might not have a First Amendment right to express anti-Muslim speech deemed hateful—it says so, right there in the Constitution, if we would bother to read it.

Okay, let’s take Cuomo’s challenge. Let’s read the speech part of the Constitution. (I hope this doesn’t take too long; I hate reading.) Oh, good, the speech stuff is right there at the beginning of the "things you can do" section:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My copy of the Constitution seems to be missing this fabled “except hate speech, none of that” clause.

As it turns out, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the First Amendment to protect all kinds of odious speech, including speech perceived to be hateful. Constitutional speech protections wouldn’t be very strong if they did not include hate speech, since one person’s statement of hate is another’s statement of truth. “George Bush is a war criminal” might be construed as a hateful statement if you’re George Bush, after all.

There are indeed limits on the First Amendment; the Supreme Court has held that “fighting words” and incitements to specific and imminent violence are not protected.  But as recently as 2011, the Court ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to picket a military funeral and wave signs that read “You’re going to hell” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

In other words, it doesn’t look like the Court is ready to undertake some vast reinterpretation of the First Amendment that would possibly justify the claims of the “hate speech isn’t protected” brigade.

So in response to Cuomo, I would say this: Don’t just say you love the Constitution, man. Read it!

Ken White of Popehat (I first typed "Popehate," so hang on to your speech rights, Ken) has a terrific response to a similarly awful McClatchy piece that raises questions about the limits of free speech—questions like, shouldn't we limit free speech?

Photo Credit: Dreamstime

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.

  • WTF||

    He has a law degree from Fordham University and is a licensed attorney.

    I think I see the problem. Attorneys are not taught that the Constitution means what it says. They are taught that the meaning of the Constitution depends on case law and judges decisions. So he thinks that if he is just convincing in his argument, then that is what the First Amendment means.

  • R C Dean||

    Attorneys are not taught that the Constitution means what it says.

    Yep. Con Law class is entirely cases. It doesn't start with "Welp, heres a law that's been challenged, and here's what the Constitution says. What do you think? OK, now lets look at what SCOTUS said."

    Calling it a Constitutional Law class is not accurate.. Its more the "Collected Musings of the Supreme Court" class.

  • Catatafish||

    This is all true. What's also true - and what Cuomo should clearly know - is that there is no SCOTUS case law that supports his statement.

    Either he's a retard or his Con Law professor at Fordham is shite.

  • WTF||

    I think he is trying to justify his claim by disingenuously citing fighting words doctrine.

  • Catatafish||

    And not even defending that tendentious claim well. I believe he tweeted that Geller could have fallen afoul of the "fighting words" doctrine had she not properly anticipated potential harm to attendees. That's...not the correct analysis.

  • Quixote||

    I "hate" to say this (oops), but the "fighting words" doctrine is simply ignored by most judges today. As we saw recently in New York, inappropriately deadpan email parodies that "stir up controversy" can also be criminalized in the United States, if they cross the line from causing "momentary discomfort and embarrassment" to causing "reputational harm." The real, lurking issue in American free speech law is criminal libel, call it what you may. The criminalizing of libel has never been definitively found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and libel does not involve any sort of "fighting words." See the documentation of America's leading criminal satire case at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Win Bear||

    The criminalizing of libel has never been definitively found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,

    But criminalizing libel clearly contradicts the First Amendment. Civil lawsuits for libel, initiated by one private party against another, and recovering demonstrable damages, on the other hand, do not.

  • Quixote||

    Well, the definition of libel is "harm to reputation." The case to which I have linked my noble readers rests on the distinction between deadpan mockery with the intent to cause "momentary discomfort and embarrassment," which according to Albany cannot be criminalized, and deadpan mockery with the intent to cause reputational harm (i.e., libel), which according to Albany can be criminalized. This criminal standard is appropriately weaker than the one used in civil cases, because no actual damages need to be shown, only a criminal intent to harm a reputation. I haven't seen any First Amendment specialists quarreling with this decision, so I think it's safe to say it's generally acknowledged that this is where the First Amendment stands in America today. Now that the New York Times has recognized the difference between hate speech and free speech, let us all recognize that jail is the most proper punishment for alleged libel in America today.

  • DarrenM||

    The idea of "fighting words" is pretty malleable. "Fighting words" to one person is just something to be ignored or laughed about to another.

  • SimonD||

    "Either he's a retard or his Con Law professor at Fordham is shite."

    You forgot the most likely explanation, that he is a lying Commie Prog scumbag.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    ...is that there is no SCOTUS case law that supports his statement...

    Worse than no support, cases like the Westboro Church case, the KKK case, the Nazi case, completely contradict his statement.

    As vile as these groups are, it is all protected speech. Period. End of discussion.

    One could make a better case saying the 1st amendment is more about protecting the speech we don't like...

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Occasionally "Collected drugged ravings of the Supreme Court"

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    one word ---- NEPOTISM.

    if his name wasn't Cuomo he would probably be cleaning grease traps out of Wendy's or pumping septic tanks.

  • DenverJay||

    +1 for Cuomo, but what's Frank Murphy's excuse?

  • DenverJay||

    Sorry wrote on my POS windows phone, html links hard.

    Frank Murphy

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Seriously, with all the Geller-bashing, doesn't she have a point: many Americans are willing to obey the Sharia ban on insulting the Prophet because of the actions of the terrorists.

  • WTF||

    Her critics certainly seem hell-bent on making that case for her.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The funny thing is Sharia doesn't actually forbit representations of whatshisname. Just a subset of Sunni interpretations of Sharia do. The Shi'a have a crapload of images of the guy laying around.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I never said *all* Muslims do this explod-y stuff, and I don't think she claims it, either.

    It's those who *do* engage int he explod-y stuff that she's warning against. I'm not saying I agree with all her proposed remedies, but her diagnosis seems quite fair.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Explod-y stuff isn't limited to Sunni groups (see Hezbollah for the first example to spring to mind on the Shi'a side)

    And the prolonged silence of the non-explod-y groups makes it hard to determine if there's any significant number of them cowering in terror.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Of course the silence of non-explody Islamics might have something to do with the way the International Community has been ready to throw them under the bus for the last, what, seventy years or so?

  • DenverJay||

    Or, or, now stay with me here, the silence of non-explody Islamics might have something to do with the way that they hate infidels even more than they hate each other. Just saying...

  • Win Bear||

    I don't think so. The beliefs of the majority of the world's Muslims are dubious and incompatible with liberty at best. E.g., http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0.....iety-exec/

    Keep in mind that it isn't that long ago that Muslims ruled much of the known world, including big portions of Europe, kept Christians as slaves, and threatened to conquer the rest. (Muslims enslaved millions of Europeans.)

    Much of the Muslim anger is simply rooted in anger over the huge empire, wealth, and power they pissed away, and the fact that they are poverty-stricken countries that come begging for handouts from their former slaves.

  • ||

    And fucking crasy, too.

  • MarkLastname||

    I think Geller openly denies that the Bhurmese government has done wrong to its Muslim inhabitants and basically hold the position that "if someone is killing Muslims, then the Muslims must have done something to deserve it." So suffice it to say I think she's a real bitch. Same with Horowitz. I think they're itching for an all out Holy War. Even Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian Indian who is in a perfect position to be critical of Islam, has severely criticized Horowitz's interpretation of the Mughal occupation of India as being absurdly one-sided.

    That's not to say it's not a disgrace that one can't verbally attack Islam without expecting violent retribution, as opposed to almost every other religious sect today, where they seem wholly capable of shrugging it off. But Geller and Horowitz aren't saints. If someone attacked an event hosted by David Duke, I probably wouldn't be first in line to send the guy money because of it.

  • Careless||

    There's a difference between drawing him and drawing him in an insulting manner. Different prohibitions

  • Azathoth!!||

    No.

    The prohibition is on ANY representation. Good or bad.

    The westerners who've drawn him for these contests tend towards disrespect, but it isn't universal.

  • Win Bear||

    Yes, there are prohibitions that apply to Muslims; they don't apply to non-Muslims obviously.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    of course

  • GILMORE||

    JUST GOOGLE IT

  • GILMORE||

    lol

    he actually went there=

    "Chris Cuomo

    @ChrisCuomo

    .@JohnRiversToo google "chaplinsky" and read fighting words doctrine."

    people keep pointing out to him that "fighting words" dont encompass hate speech. He keeps going NYAH NYAH NYAH GOOGLE IT

  • UnCivilServant||

    Narcissism and Arrogance runs in that family.

  • Drake||

    And stupidity.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Thing is, I don't think they're stupid - just evil.

  • Rhywun||

    just evil

    This can never be empasized enough. "Stupid" would imply that he and his ilk actually believe the words that come out of their mouth. We know for a fact that for the most part they practice doublethink.

  • RG||

    Yes, it's a toxic mix. Cuomo can't STFU on topics he is hopelessly stupid on. He'll continue to smugly pontificate on stuff he has no evidence to back up his positions.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    So, a fairly typical Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive pundit, comma, one each. Worth a bucket of lukwarm spit.

  • WTF||

    And corruption. Don't forget the corruption.

  • Jayburd||

    Isn't shooting someone with an ak-47 the free exercise of religion?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a violation of someone else's rights, and that's what makes it a crime.

  • McKenna||

    ^ What he said. Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the Declaration is not an official part of US Constitutional law, it does get used for interpretation a great deal.

  • Jayburd||

    It's in the Qur'an.

  • Jayburd||

    It's in the Qur'an that we can pay them off. Maybe that is a possible solution.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.

  • Heedless||

    Robert's court declares jizya a tributax.

  • ||

    Except Jefferson did pay trbute to the Barbary Pirates to return some Christian Americans captured and sold into slavery.

    They just stole the money and kept right on pirating.

    So then he kicked their ass.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Is this like the old Soviet Union claiming to have invented everything, like airplanes, cars, and even hot dogs? Is Mecca now claiming that Muhammed invented the AK-47?

    I wonder if we could get a religious exemption to the restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment, to have full auto AK-47s, sort of like the Indian religious exemption for peyote?

  • Jayburd||

    Maybe they have a way to walk some shit back like the Morman's did with polygamy, blood atonement for adultery, black scoutmasters etc.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The indian religious exemption for peyote was thrown out with great force. On the grounds (as I understand it) that 1) peyote was not, in fact, commonly used by the tribes the people claiming the exemption belonged to and 2) in those tribes that used it, peyote was medicine man business, not for the rank and file.

    Which brings up the interesting possibility that the Tribes could flat out refuse to collect taxes on tobacco, which was broadly ised as a sacrament across most tribes, and by most adults.

    Wouldn't THAT set the cat among the pigeons?

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The tribal "governments" are too busy feeding at the handout trough to do that.

  • DenverJay||

    So, my sainted wife's sister is actually on the tribal council of a major tribe. I mean, technically, she's the equivalent of a senator of a sovereign nation, only there are many fewer council members, and it's not bicameral, so her power is actually a lot greater.
    Anywhoose:
    1&2: This brings up an interesting point;
    Are only recognized, already established religions the only ones protected by the First Amendment? If I think that I have been visited by an angel, who tells me that acid is the path to enlightenment, my right to live according to my beliefs is excluded?
    3: The Sovereign Nations do not collect cigarette (or any other) taxes for other entities. All taxes collected on their land go into their coffers.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    it is in Islam - in the middle east it is considered a sacrament.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Speech rights are just like the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment doesn't give us the right to indiscriminately shoot people. It gives us the right to choose to own a gun. However, you can be held criminally responsible if you use your gun to violate someone else's rights.

    Free speech works the exact same way. You are free to say what you please--so long as you don't use your speech to violate someone else's rights. Saying, "empty the cash register or I'll blow your head off" is not protected speech--because it is speech used to violate someone else's rights. Fraud is also not protected speech because it is speech used to violate someone else's rights.

    Show me how hate speech--in and of itself--violates someone else's rights, and I'll agree that it isn't protected by the First Amendment.

    ...but I have never seen anyone make the case persuasively that hate speech--in and of itself--constitutes a violation of someone else's rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    Hate speech violates the right to not be offended! I'm offended that you would suggest that hate speech doesn't violate any rights! You comment is hate speech! I'm calling the police!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't believe that anyone has a right not to be offended.

    Hypothetically, can you think of a persuasive argument showing that people have a right not to be offended?

    Should people be able to take each other to court for violating their right not to be offended--absent some kind of contract?

    Has anyone ever been convicted in criminal court of having said something to offend someone--absent the accompaniment of some sort of violence or violent threat?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Ken, you missed sarcasmic's schtick.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, his handle kind of gives it away.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd invoke Poe's law, but in this case, I was fully aware that sarcasmic's schtick was schtick--but it's also very serious.

    What sarcasmic was making fun of is what people really say.

    Seriously.

  • WTF||

    What sarcasmic was making fun of is what people really say.

    True, sadly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, and when they say that, we should press them on it.

    We should ask them, "Do you really believe that people have a right not to be offended?"

    "What do you base that on?"

    If they think that our rights don't really exist and/or that they're just arbitrarily created, changed, or destroyed by the government--then make them say that.

    Preferably in front of other people.

    Make them say that freedom of speech isn't really a right--and the government can take it away or change it whenever they want.

    And then ask them if they're a member of the Moral Majority.

  • sarcasmic||

    If rights don't come from government, then where to they come from? The rights fairy?

    /Tony

  • WTF||

    Unfortunately not sarcasm this time. This is what 'Tony' actually believes.

  • AlexInCT||

    That's a good one Sarc....

  • David Wall||

    If rights don't come from government, then where to they come from? The rights fairy? /Tony

    To be fair many defenders of free speech cannot answer this question without reference to "god given" or "natural rights" . It is at this level that the Cuomo's and Tony's of the world attack free speech with some success. God given is an irrational argument and is especially ruinous for liberty as an argument. Just look at the ineffectiveness of conservatives for 100 years of bad examples. Natural is in a sense correct and is often sited by libertarians, but it is not a complete answer without reference to man's natural requirements of survival which requires the ability to think and act on those thoughts (including speech) to survive. Political free speech is derivative: the basic right is the right to life.

  • ace_m82||

    Where do your rights come from, then? Why shouldn't politicians use government force against you? What do they have to fear?

  • psCargile||

    Rights come from the individual. Too many people view the Constitution as a document by the government to the people, when it is from the people to the government telling the government this is all that we consent that you can do in managing the country.

    The government fears the day we no longer consent.

  • Akira||

    "If they think that our rights don't really exist and/or that they're just arbitrarily created, changed, or destroyed by the government--then make them say that."

    That's a good strategy. I like to get them to admit their theory that rights are just government-granted privileges to be taken away at will, because then you can ask them, "if the government creates and administers rights, was slavery OK? After all, the government chose not to give those black people any rights. And what about the Holocaust? The Nazi government took away their rights, so why complain?"

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ask them about Rosa Parks!

    If the government says Rosa Parks doesn't have the right to sit in the front of a public bus because of her race, is that okay with you?

    The government said she didn't have that right.

    But didn't Rosa Parks have the right to sit in the front of a public bus anyway?

    Do you really think our rights are a popularity contest? How does it feel to be on the same side as the segregationists?

    That's what I typically use. Again, it's most effective when you hit 'em with this stuff in front of other people.

  • sarcasmic||

    Aw, come on! Government ended slavery! Government ended Jim Crow! Those things weren't created by government! They were created by libertarians! That's the end result of liberty run amok! Government saves us from liberty!

  • Lesdouche||

    Guys, I'm being triggered. Mental rapage. Please. Stop.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can really hurt me!

    Waaaaaaaaaaaah!

  • Paul.||

    Don't you mean schticks and stones?

  • MarkLastname||

    Well put. But it's worth noting that mens rea must be present for speech to be criminalized. If I say "Gosh, I hate that prick Thomas More," and someone overhears me saying that and decides to kill Thomas More to impress me, I would not be responsible for the murder, only the person who committed it would be. Whereas if I said "kill Thomas More, loyal servant," then I would be responsible.

    There are of course gray areas related to wiseguys saying to their underlings "it sure would be a weight off my shoulders if Luigi were not around anymore, wink wink."

    But when I hear these lefties say hate speech, I just remember Charlie Rangel comparing opponents of affirmative action to Adolf Hitler. Dare I speculate that if that's what some of these people actually believe, they might actually use 'hate speech' laws to criminalize political positions which are in fact not the least bit racist, bigoted or hateful.

  • ||

    Hide your dogs before you dial 911.

  • RG||

    Ken, it violates feelings. And we all know rights are based on the feelz.

  • GILMORE||

    " I have never seen anyone make the case persuasively that hate speech--in and of itself--constitutes a violation of someone else's rights.'

    "Feelings are a right!"
    /the internet

  • MarkLastname||

    Here's how the argument goes: Making a person feel bad feelings causes psychological trauma, which will can even cause permanent damage to psychological and emotional health. They will show you studies demonstrating this. Ergo, causing a person 'trauma' even through heated twitter comments, is basically a form of assaulting them. This means, they argue, it should be criminalized.

    Mind you, they are very selective about applying this thinking. The moment you mention a conservative Christian's truama at having to see two gay guys kiss, they immediately forget all that stuff. But that's the gist of the rationalization. Mean speech is equivalent to 'psychological assault.'

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    Saying, "empty the cash register or I'll blow your head off" is not protected speech--because it is speech used to violate someone else's rights.


    Actually, Ken, that is not the standard by which speech should be measured. You can't simply tie the speech to a subsequent action. What is evil is the action, not the speech. The action of presenting oneself as a threat by making aggressive gestures IS the objectionable action, not the words.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So we are going straight theory?

    I'm going to say that handing a bank teller a note saying that you have a bomb and threatening to use it is a crime (using speech)--even if the bank robber in question doesn't have a bomb.

    Again, you have the right to choose what you say and write. However, if you choose to violate someone else's rights with what you say or write, you can and should be convicted of a crime.

    Just like with the Second Amendment. You have the right to choose to own a gun. However, if you choose to use your gun to violate someone else's rights--that's a crime. I think some people are reluctant to give an inch on the suggestion that you could be criminally convicted for something you say--for fear that social justice warriors will take a mile. But convicting people of a crime for making violent threats, armed robberty, fraud, etc., these are all legitimate crimes in that they're legitimate violations of other people's legitimate rights. And if government has any legitimate function at all, it is protect our rights.

  • robc||

    I agree with Ken on this.

    I like the bubble theory of rights. A right expands until it meets someone elses rights. As rights can never be in conflict, one of the rights ends when it meets up with another.

    In the case above, the free speech ends when it (legitimately) threatens someone else. It does require intent. Using the word "bomb" isnt a threat. Handing the teller a note saying you have a bomb is a threat.

  • Harold Falcon||

    But it's not the speech qua speech that should be illegal there. Saying "I have a bomb, give me the money" by itself should not be illegal. But intending to rob a bank (mens rea) and taking steps to rob the bank (actus rea) is illegal. The speech itself is irrelevant.

  • Wlinden||

    Otherwise, saying "shut up or I'll knock your block off" would be "assault".

  • Wlinden||

    "If you interrupt my cross-examination, I'll kill you." -- Rumpole

  • Wlinden||

    Uh, we arrest people for the robbery, not for writing something ungood.

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    I have a feeling that it will be said that it violates another's right to the pursuit of happiness. If you say mean things, I can't be happy and if I can't be happy, you've violated my rights.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    We don't have the right to be happy....only to pursue it. As I will be later at the pub around the corner.

  • Win Bear||

    Speech rights are just like the Second Amendment.

    The First Amendment doesn't grant you "Speech Rights". It is an unconditional prohibition on what laws government can pass, for any reason.

    Saying, "empty the cash register or I'll blow your head off" is not protected speech--because it is speech used to violate someone else's rights.

    Of course it is protected speech, or do you think you should be hauled into court for saying what you just said? The part that makes it a crime is actually pointing a gun at the cashier. Ditto with fraud: it's not your speech that's your crime, but your violation of a contract.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I consider hate speech my patriotic duty.

  • WTF||

    "H-a-t-e" is not how you spell "moronic".

  • Xeones||

    BBBBUUUUUUTTTTPPPPPLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUGGG

  • A Self-Identified $park¥||

    Hey there Fuckaroo Cockeye.

  • Chumby||

    Sulkowicz's Buttplug

    Who gets to decide on the definition of hate?

  • ||

    The left want to shut down free speech. Free speech that they don't agree with, that is. The way they will accomplish that is to indoctrinate and unleash onto society, a horde of brainwashed sheep that are offended by anything and everything. Then it's just a matter of shutting down all speech that anyone is offended by. They're making tremendous progress.

  • sarcasmic||

    And they'll do it in the name of tolerance. After all, tolerant people don't tolerate intolerance.

  • AlexInCT||

    Party approves speech alla round!

  • Wlinden||

    And they think they are entitled to say all the hateful things they want, somehow without it being "hate speech".

  • McKenna||

    The right wants to shut down its own versions of hate speech too, don't forget (I came from a family that started Republican and went hard libertarian when George Bush signed the Patriot Act).

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    We're only 10 years removed from the Republicans trying to ban flag burning.

  • WTF||

    Oh yeah, that was back when dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

  • From the Tundra||

    Oh, yeah! I remember that! They were all "Buck Fush" and "Endless This War".

    Good times, man.

  • robc||

    More like 20.

    McConnell flopped to the good side in the mid 90s and that effectively ended any flag burning chances.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06......html?_r=0

    They tried to pass a flag burning amendment in 2006 and it failed by one vote in the Senate.

  • livelikearefugee||

    And now that there is a recognized right to burn flags, nobody seems to be burning flags.

    Funny how rights work.

  • WTF||

    Sure, it's just that the left tends to go after political speech, while the right likes to go after 'smut'.

  • Win Bear||

    The left is catching up; just look at what feminists are up to.

    I suppose the right and the left may still disagree on lesbian porn.

  • ||

    See, the thing is, some people might consider Bush a right winger, including himself. I consider him a neocon progressive. Which would include a fairly large group of Republicans.

  • ||

    Burrito Bush is also a leftist.

  • Xeones||

    Progressives make up a solid majority of both branches of the Major Party.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    Completely unsurprising, since politicians of all stripes are by definition twats that want to control other people.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    to a liberal (socialist progressive etc..) everyone in the center is a right winger and they believe they are the center.
    To the rest of us that have a brain, we know that a neo-con like W was a center left soft progressive.

  • blist14ant||

    Your talking about the neoconservative right (Trotskyist).

  • blist14ant||

    Your talking about the neoconservative right (Trotskyist).

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    are you just waking up to this reality......been going on for decades.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The smugness of that tweet is palpable. It perfectly sums up the Cuomo family.

    But what's even better is that he's tripling down on it with his responses to everyone. He keeps citing a dead-letter case, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, from 1942 where SCOTUS said a Jehova's Witness calling a cop a "goddamned fascist" was fighting words and not free speech. So yes, he cited a case that's no longer relevant and had nothing to do with "hate speech" in the first place.

  • ||

    i thought truth was an absolute defense in speech cases.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    *raucous applause*

  • BFawlty||

    Brett drives it out of the park!!!

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    it depends upon who runs the court. Try pushing that defense through the courts around here and see how many months you end up in jail.

  • Mike A.||

    This guy's just a moron. But he went to Fordham law so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    that is why he is a talking head and not a real lawyer

    Harvey and Louis would beat the shit out of him in and out of a courtroom.

  • John C. Randolph||

    As politically connected as his family is, if they couldn't arm-twist him into Harvard or Yale, then you know he's got to be a blithering idiot.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Can we also do away with the stupidity of "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"?

    I am so sick of reading supposed legal scholars use this as a crutch to explain free speech laws.

    BRANDENBURG v OHIO. READ IT YOU IDIOTS.

    I love how Christopher Hitchens put it to rest.

  • Paul.||

    There's an unofficial drinking game here at reason whenever someone makes that claim.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I can't keep track of all the drinking games here. I think you guys are lust lushes and want an excuse.

  • WTF||

    DRINK!

  • Rich||

    lust lushes

    Nice band name.

    And HATE SPEECH!

  • Peachy rex||

    Well, duh!

  • ||

    I been around here for a while and never knew that. Cool.

    DRINK!

  • Almanian!||

    For a magazine called REASON, there were a lot more good drinking games when Virginia Postrel ran the place...

  • Peachy rex||

    Oh, man - you just invoked *two* at once. Now we gotta chug the whole bottle!

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    I'm getting tired of that canard as well.

  • GILMORE||

    To be fair, Chris is just reacting to the recent bomb threats by militant anti-feminists.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    why be "fair" the socialists never are

    btw "fair" and "equal" are two false constructs that do not occur anywhere in the Universe, much less in the seven realms

  • ||

    OT: I know that there's some overlap between this board and readers of Instapundit. Does any one know who the Law & Order Con lady co-posting there now is and why he's giving her his audience? She seems to be straight out of the security wing of the GOP.

  • B.P.||

    I don't know her well, but everything she posts is a giant word-wall. I come here for that treatment.

  • Swiss Servator, Switzier!||

    I sure hope the Professor isn't going to make that permanent. He gets more libertarian as time goes by - Foley is, as you say, a SecurityCon. Bleah.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Holy fuck, I just looked over there and didn't realize Elizabeth Price Foley is seriously falling for the claim of an ISIS camp just south of the Mexican border which was "reported" by Judicial Watch using completely unnamed sources and no actual evidence.

  • WTF||

    ISIS, drug cartel, refugee immigrants heading for the border - nothing that a drone strike can't fix!

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    If ISIS has a camp south of the Mexican border, why did they send Idiot 1 and Idiot 2 to try and shoot up the Mohammad drawing contest rather than sending an entire team from their Mexican terrorist camp?

  • Catatafish||

    Yeah, while I don't think it's outside the realm of the possible, the lack of Mumbai-esque attacks here in the States tells me one of two things are happening: 1) DHS is doing a bang-up job, or 2) ISIS are a bunch of incompetent fuckwits.

    I'm really hoping for option 2.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    If they want to try for a Mumbai style attack in fucking Texas, they'd better try it in Austin because 70% of the people in the rest of the state are probably packing.

  • WTF||

    It's likely a combination of option 2 plus the realization that a lot of people in America can shoot back.

  • UnCivilServant||

    +1 rifle behind every blade of grass.

  • WTF||

    Well, because it's too hard to move a bunch of people across the border, or something.

  • Jayburd||

    Where are they gonna find an elephant and a Mariachi band?

  • Wlinden||

    Uh, maybe they don't?

  • radar||

    The silliest thing about this "story" is the simple reason it makes no sense - why would the cartels aid jihadis in attacking their money source? There's a reason they confine the vast majority of their violence to the south side of the border - because they don't want to kill the golden goose. If they were seen as responsible for horrific violence in the US, the border would be locked down and their cash flow would dry up. Whatever money ISIS could supposedly pay them pales next to the immense profits they make off of Americans. It makes no sense whatsoever.

  • the other Jim||

    Good points. I have been seeing this sort of "terrorists lurking in Mexico" scare stories for a while now. I remember a Drudge headline a while back about a prayer rug being found near the Mexican border. For a certain kind of conservative, invoking "Mexico" can make anything scary.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    easy - they don't want to kill the great Satan, not yet at least. But got to strike at him enough to rally the useful idiots to back the cause and lay down their pathetic miserable lives. Revolutions run on money and the blood of volunteers and there are lots of smaller targets to get out of the way before you knock off the biggest one.

  • Harun||

    Judicial Watch did this before. They are usually pretty good, but really, is ISIS intel their gig? No. FOIA is their gig. So when I heard this the second time, I immediately discounted it.

    I suspect they have a bad source somewhere.

  • ||

    Yes, the constitution protects "hate speech".

    What the courts have held (controversionally), is that a "hate crime" can be punished more harshly than other crimes. That is if a person makes "hate speech" during the commission of an assault, indicating that the crime was motivated by hatred of some sort of protected class, THEN they can be punished extra. Loosely one could interpretly as punishment for hate speech, but it can only happen in the context of some other criminal behavior.

  • McKenna||

    Sort of an 'aggravated assault' instead of just 'assault' thing.

  • quinnsysmith||

    The project mockingbird globalist CNN talking head, is too stupid to understand the Constitution and needs some authoritarian Nanny state government official telling him what the Constitution means.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    more than likely he is just playing to the crowd. Probably wants to be a government hotshot like the rest of his family. Can't get there without parroting the party line.

  • dan'o||

    I really hope he isn't taking the position that drawing Muhammad "incites violence." Free speech would then protect anything offensive- so long as the offended aren't willing to respond with violence

  • stupac8908||

    And now he has spent the last hour walking back on his comment. He is asserting that by The Constitution he meant case law, and by hate speech, he meant fighting words.

    "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."

    "Fighting words are the hate speech prohibited."

  • WTF||

    He is asserting that by The Constitution he meant case law,

    Hah! I fucking KNEW it!

  • double ham fisted||

    It is the character limit of Twitter that is at fault here. He was forced to use an ellipses that destroyed his nuanced thoughts on the matter. Now that he realizes he can use more than one tweet in a day he is able to further expand his thoughts.

  • ||

    Another reason why people whould stop using twitter. A medium that destroys nuance is not a medium conducive to intelligent conversation.

    Political debates reduced to 140 character tweets will always, by necessity, descend into inane sound bites. That's why nobody can accomplish anything via Twitter except screaming flame wars mob attacks. You can't type a coherent paragraph, but you sure can coordinate 100 people to yell insults simultaneously.

  • Xeones||

    It's possible to use Twitter to produce long-form pieces that are just about classifiable as literature, but only Norm McDonald and Patton Oswalt seem to be into that.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    Another modern version of newspeak (along with speech codes and the like). Reducing peoples ability to communicate ideas, until they start thinking in 140 characters or less.

  • ||

    I think we're reaching the limits of the "fighting words" doctrine here.

    The problem is that if the supposed target gets free reign to decide what counts as fighting words, then you're giving the target absolute authority to shut down any speech they don't like.

    Islamists could decide tomorrow that calling them "terrorists" is 'fighting words". They could say that saying "Islam is a backwards and mysogynistic religion" is "fighting words".

    Especially given their propensity to resort to violence over the slightest provocation. The 'fighting words" doctrine essentially allows the most violent and provokable people to control dialogue.

  • Catatafish||

    He's also saying that his comment had nothing to do with Garland. But then says that Geller might have fallen afoul of the "fighting words" case law if she didn't properly anticipate potential harm to attendees.

    He's all over the retard spectrum.

  • John||

    Christ Cuomo an idiot son. The thing about successful families is that each generation is dumber and more worthless than the last. You start out with the old man who makes it on his own only to have a son who grows up spoiled and vacuous. Then you add in the genes of a few trophy wives and things quickly go down hill.

    Here you start out with Mario Cuomo. He was of course a vicious partisan and at heart a pretty nasty leftist. He did however have enough gumption to go from being the son of immigrant store owners in Brooklyn all the way to being the governor of New York. Whatever you think of his politics, and in my case not much, you have to respect someone who can do that. Then you get the idiot sons Chris and Andrew. They grow up pampered with everything handed to them. It is not like their father was that bright to begin with. So not only are they not bright, they never get the gumption and guts that their father had growing up having to earn everything. They get everything handed to them and are not bright enough to realize it. No only are they stupid, they actually are convinced they are brilliant. It produces some really sorry individuls of which Chris Cumomo is a great example of the species.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "The thing about successful families is that each generation is dumber and more worthless than the last."

    What about the Adams family (with one "d," not two)?

  • John||

    There is an exception to every rule. But really was John Quincy not inferior to his father? I think so.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    John Quincy was also pretty much the only really successful Adams child. Charles and Thomas Boylston Adams were both drunkards who were largely successful because of who they were related to. In Charles case he wasn't even successful because he died when he was 30, but Thomas at least became a judge.

  • WTF||

    Charles and Thomas Boylston Adams were both drunkards who were largely successful because of who they were related to.

    So, just like the Kennedys.

  • robc||

    Q was a better President, but that is a fairly low bar, considering the Adams presidency.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    true

  • HighOnCraic||

    There's some truth to this. When Mario was governor, I lived right across the street from the mansion. He'd actually bo out there sweeping the sidewalk in front of the place on Sunday mornings. No entourage or photo ops or anything. Sometimes when I and my other 20 something neighbors would sit on the stoop in the summertime, he's walk over and chat for a few minutes.

    Vigorously disagree with the man, but he seemed like a nice fellow.

  • Ted S.||

    He'd actually bo out there

    Mario Cuomo liked pedantry, niggling, and question-begging?

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    Hitler and Stalin were nice to people too, so was Fidel - its what they did behind the curtain that was disgusting.

  • BigT||

    "You start out with the old man who makes it on his own only to have a son who grows up spoiled and vacuous. Then you add in the genes of a few trophy wives and things quickly go down hill."

    Beer bubbled out of my nose when I read this! Pure gold!

  • B.P.||

    Semi-OT, but I do think it's delicious that ISIS took credit for the attack in Garland.

    "We sent our crack warriors of Allah to smite the infidels! Um, wait, what happened? They managed to shoot one person in the foot? And then they got mowed down by gunfire? At a comic showing?"

  • ||

    By a beat copwith his pistol before the response team could get there. If that's their A team, we're fine.

  • R C Dean||

    I know. I love the way nobody is pointing out that regular old cops with regular old pistols seem to be ample security, and all the paramilitary crap has just been shown up to be, well, not value-added.

  • cfskyrim||

    It also goes to show that you can't just pick up a gun and all of a sudden be Rambo, as the left would have everyone believe.

    One guy that is a good shot and can function under pressure will kick the shit out of amateur wannabe every single time (there may be a fluke every now and again).

  • Redmanfms||

    It also goes to show that you can't just pick up a gun and all of a sudden be Rambo, as the left would have everyone believe.

    Actually, that's their position when it comes to CCW.

  • You're Kidding||

    yes but, wannabe Rambo types frequently practice which puts them miles ahead of most LEOs.

    At the indoor firing range of my city's PD, there are plastic picnic tables. One of them has this huge whole in it. It was created by a one of that city's finest while at the range for his annual test......he was "cleaning his weapon".

  • You're Kidding||

    I was on a jury in a carjacking trial years back. Said jacker was in fact a gang banger from RIchmond as were most of the witnesses in that trial.

    What blew my mind, and helped lead to conviction, was the multiple descriptions of how he held the gun on the victim. As this forum doesn't allow pictures, I'll try and describe:

    Left arm fully extended with hand pointing towards target. Right hand holding handgun, pulled back adjacent to right ear! A kind of macho pose.

    Yep, the stupid SOB was going to blow off his own left hand as well as blow out his right eardrum simultaneously. The worst part was, all of these gang bangers seemed to see nothing wrong with that.

    It was enough to make me think that gun control was a good idea after all.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, why would they take credit for a humiliating failure?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I hope somebody smacked him upside the head as soon as he sent out that tweet.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Nope, he just kept digging deeper.

  • cfskyrim||

    Fuck Mohammed, I hope that mother fucker is being raped by a ogre with 10 foot dick for all eternity.

  • cfskyrim||

    I also hope that I learn basic grammar one day as well.

  • ||

    Ok, I can help, since there's not an edit feature here.

    I hope that camel fucking pedophile named Mohammed is being butt raped by 'AN' Ogre named Warty for all of eternity.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Why would you do that to Warty?

  • Catatafish||

    Yeah, I'd much prefer we go the poetic justice route and the ogre's name is "Aiesha" and it has the head of a 9-year old girl.

  • Jayburd||

    Mohammed would have to start carrying a mattress around.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    agreed

  • Joe_in_Indiana||

    Cuomo's statements would not come from the Jesuit institutions I went and graduated from.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    you mean like Georgetown - and the antics they just pulled concerning free speech? All of American academia is complete BS

  • Andrew S.||

    Speaking of Ken @ Popehat, he had a nice burn on Cuomo on Twitter related to this:

    Ass. You are a disgrace to Fordham Law School, which only admitted you because of your famous father.

    And another one:

    .@ChrisCuomo Have you considered focusing on a less challenging amendment, like maybe the Third?
  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    lol

  • cfskyrim||

    Question:

    If we must all bow down and reverently refer to a murderous pedophile as, "The Prophet", why is the same courtesy not extended to Christianity?

    By their logic, we must all refer to Christ as King of Kings Jesus Christ.

    Wonder how that would go over with jihadi fuckwads.

  • Rich||

    A Hindu friend told me that even though people think they are worshipping other gods, Vishnu knows they are *really* worshipping him.

    I thought that a rather slick solution.

  • cfskyrim||

    I've had the same thing said to me about Christ.

    Me: "Mom, if you have believe in Christ to get to heaven, then what about all the people in the New World that had never heard of him, that's not really fair."

    Mom: "Well, they believed in higher powers so I'm sure that Jesus knew they were referring to him, they just had a different name for him."

    Me: "They were pagans."

    Mom: ".................."

    I love my mom and I never expected her to be an endless fountain of knowledge, but I always found that line of thinking lacking, to be generous.

  • robc||

    I think the book of Hebrews and a few other passages covers that concept specifically (although not specifically enough to avoid confusion).

  • cfskyrim||

    You talking about when it basically says that you're only held accountable for the things that you know?

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    I'll be laughing at Christians, moslems, Hindus, scientologists, when I'm riding behind Odin in the Wild Hunt.

  • waffles||

    I don't know. Personally I started referring to the propho mohomo as M-Dawg (PBUH). I think it carries the correct level of reverence.

  • GILMORE||

    Yo down with M-Dog?

    I Roll with Mo

  • Rich||

    one person’s statement of hate is another’s statement of truth

    META HATE SPEECH!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    He’s also a former law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He has a law degree from Fordham University and is a licensed attorney. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is his brother.

    An unimpeachable source of Constitutional scholarship if ever there was one. And he plays one on the teevee.

  • Spoonman.||

    General laws against blasphemy of any religions seem to invoke the principle of explosion, because you're starting with the contradictory principle that you're not going to insult mutually exclusive belief systems. Isn't it blasphemy in Christianity to say Muhammed was a prophet of God, and blasphemy in Islam to say he wasn't?

  • cfskyrim||

    Yes and it's also blasphemy that Islam only thinks of Jesus as a prophet and not the Messiah, son of God.

  • cfskyrim||

    and around and around and around we go, welcome to crazy prog land, hold onto your brains for as long as can!

  • Rich||

    It's blasphemy all the way down!

  • John C. Randolph||

    Isn't it blasphemy in Christianity to say Muhammed was a prophet of God,

    That would be heresy, not blasphemy. Blasphemy would be saying that Muhammad was divine himself.

    -jcr

  • OldMexican||

    According to Cuomo, Geller and her ilk might not have a First Amendment right to express anti-Muslim speech deemed hateful—it says so, right there in the Constitution, if we would bother to read it.


    Ok, it is obvious it doesn't say that, but what should concern us libertarians the most is how quickly people shifted the blame of what happened to the Muhammad Cartoon contest organizers by labeling theirs as "Hate Speech". The standards of what is "Hate Speech" seem to shift like sand dunes in the wind - a very convenient wind. What were the standards of Hate Speech when an artist presented a crucifix inside a jar with piss which was obviously meant to mock Christianity?

    But don't search too close for consistency among the little Marxians. This is not about not offending anyone. It is about lowering the bar for brown people. This is all about White Guilt®. This is about infantilizing people.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Serrano is a Christian and claims that Piss Christ wasn't meant to mock the religion but was meant to criticize people who devalued the faith...or something.

    Regardless, there are a million examples of people mocking Christians but those never get counted as hate speech.

  • Harun||

    It doesn't matter what he thinks. Its what the offended party thinks.

    This is why this is dangerous ground. If Opus Dei thinks Piss Christ is offensive, then he has tro shut it down or he gets what he deserves when the car bomb goes off.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It might be good to remember that the Left went into pearl-clutching mode over the criticisms of "Piss Christ" because it was not violence that Christians were threatening, but federal funding for displays of such art.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The feds should not be funding any 'art'.

    If the lefties want to fund art, they can pay for it out of pocket.

  • Xeones||

    That's hate speech! WHY DO YOU HATE THE ARTISTS, WHOSE WORK IS BEYOND VALUE.

  • Animal||

    "A State-sponsored artist is an incompetent whore." - Robert Heinlein

  • Jayburd||

    I'm sure the Endowment has a 'piss test' now.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    to a liberal, de-funding is violence.

    It is sociology-economic abuse, class snobbery and racist cruelty to expect welfare recipients to work for a living.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    You know you else funded the arts?

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    *who, maybe?

  • You're Kidding||

    shouldn't that be "little marxians" with a small 'm'?

    I'm just saying...........

  • The Late P Brooks||

    SAVE THE UNIONS

    Of course, the union still has to perform — federal law requires the union to represent those in the bargaining unit whether the union is paid or not. Such service — which may include hiring lawyers to fight a discharge in arbitration — the union must perform for free.

    But something bigger is happening: Labor is starting to think outside the box. It is hard to get across to Americans the weirdness of the U.S. labor model — the idea that a union can only bargain if it is the “exclusive representative” of everyone. In most countries, labor is never the exclusive representative. Nor does it have to be a majority. Instead, a union can bargain, strike or disrupt with 40 percent, 20 percent or just whoever supports it.

    Why don’t Americans do it the way that way, too? It would not take a new law. Just a change in the way the old Wagner Act — the New Deal law that gave workers the right to bargain — is interpreted. For years, the standard view has been that employers have no legal duty to bargain unless the union is the exclusive representative. It is not clear, however, that the Wagner Act means this at all. The National Labor Relations Board could just re-interpret the law.

    Let's just let the NLRB rewrite the Wagner Act. FAIRNESS!

  • ||

    So, in effect, Democrats and the educated elite are saying to white males with high-school degrees and to many others, “It’s too late for you.”

    White males are born oppressors, aren't they? Don't they deserve everything they get?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Being a Cuomo is contraindicative of someone who knows, or, more importantly, cares about what the Constitution says.

  • waffles||

    I think all those accusations that Chris Cuomo fucks sheep are outrageous and mendacious. Nonetheless it is constitutionally protected speech. Bestiality, on the other hand, is illegal in most jurisdictions.

  • cfskyrim||

    you're just Islamophobic and through your privilege you look down on those that fuck sheep.

    Say 20 hail Stalins and you'll be fine.

  • ||

    If I tweet a reply to Cuomo 'I hate your mind' will that qualify as hate speech?

  • kfs||

    Him and his brother, Andy boy can GO FUCK THEMSELVES ! . Along with their father they're a big reason why New York State is a corrupt shithole.

  • You're Kidding||

    And here most of us thought it was la famiglia that brought the corruption to NY.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netjob80.com

  • bacon-magic||

    Chris Cuomo makes Corky from Life goes on look like Albert Einstein.

  • LivingnDetroit||

    Love some of the twitter response, but Cuomo has the best comment earlier.

    "Tweets are short but dont have to be short sighted"

  • Unable2Reason||

    Geller did us a great service by flushing out a couple of ticking time bombs while everything was in place to deal with them. She didn't radicalize them, they already were. Course, everybody back at the mosque said they were a great couple of guys...just like your neighbor until you catch the smell of a rotting corpse coming from his basement.

  • You're Kidding||

    No. Just like all the single moms they show on TV after their son gets in deep trouble: "But he was a good boy", or his friends saying, "he had his issues but he was turning his life around".

  • orthohawk1026@gmail.com||

    I agree that incitement to specific and imminent violence should not be protected, but "fightin' words"???? Oh, so YOU are so weak-willed that YOU can't control YOUR emotions and actions *I* have to suffer loss of freedom to say what I wish?? Bullsh*t.

  • DKCMOM1||

    This is the kind of urban legend type tweet that is so stupid people will always wonder if it was made up. Chris is obviously a man born, bred, educated and living in an echo chamber.

  • Aloysious||

    Has anybody yet said that Chris Coumo is maleducated?

  • You're Kidding||

    Nope. It's male educated.

    Had he been female educated, things would be different.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    His Twitter feed is hilarious. He absolutely refuses to admit he fucked up. He's hanging his hopes on people believing he meant fighting words and not hate speech.

  • rudehost||

    Cuomo is a moron. See Cohen v. California. As moronic as the fighting words doctrine is it doesn't remotely apply here. There is massive case law that doesn't say he is a moron explicitly but does imply it.

  • iupchris10||

    I bet Cuomo was tweeting #jesuischarlie when Hebdo was attacked. But when it happens in Texas, well, they shouldn't have been engaging in hate speech!

  • Saxondale||

    Of course by hate speech he means speech he and his ilk disagree with. By broadly defining what "hate -speech" is they can confine public discourse within the narrow range of their orthodoxy while any opinions expressed outside that range ring of blasphemy. It's always instructive when Statists seek to limit public discourse. It suggests their arguments can't win on merit and thus require muzzling the other side. Not at all surprised it's one of the Cuomo clan promoting this lie.

  • Darth Soros||

    For at least two decades now, "liberals" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") have been trying to expand whatever definition "hate speech" originally had, to the broader definition of "anything we disagree with." If you injected many of them truth serum, they'd probably want to classify Reason.com "hate speech" and get it off the Internet.

  • joebanana||

    I believe he slandered the US Constitution. That isn't "protected" speech.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Speech I hate isn't included in the 1st amendment".

  • Skipper||

    Cuomo understands that the First Amendment is modified by the emanations from the amendment's penumbra, which are informed by the laws of all enlightened nations.

  • Laird||

    Cuomo is as stupid as the rest of his clan.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Maybe Mr Cuomo is right. After all LOTS of people think we deserved 911. Maybe we should stop being a nation so that angry people aren't insulted and outraged by us. I'm sure Mr Cuomo's Catholic faith will be honored and respected under sharia. No worries.

  • Clementia||

    Wait a minute. A couple of armed gunmen attack a gathering of people whose only offense was drawing caricatures, and our response is to censor the victims? How does this even make sense?

    And the ironic thing is that these are the very people who are quick to support "rape culture" and heap scorn on the notion that "if she was dressed like a slut she asked for it". Yet it's OK to say things like, "Well, they were drawing caricatures of Muhammad, so obviously they were just asking to be shot at". It's a strange world these people inhabit.

  • You're Kidding||

    Burqas for all!

  • Rockabilly||

    The progressive communists celebrate diversity
    but only if
    they agree with you

  • XM||

    Did the "Draw Mohammed" contest encourage entrants to be offensive?

    If I drew a buffoonish looking Mohammed partying with 70 scantily clad virgins, that would just be provocative caricature. If I depicted him raping little boys, that might be crossing a line.

    But radical Islam doesn't make a distinction between the two. And that's why 1A fans hold "draw Mohammed" events.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ..."

    OK, free speech, no "buts", I agree.

    How about freedom of religion? Ten gabillion laws passed these days, they add the qualifier, "sincerely held religious beliefs", blah-blah, as if the parasitical bastard judges and lawyers can read our freakin' minds, and tell whether our religious beliefs are "sincerely held", or not. I see a mile-wide gap for the blood-sucking parasites of 10,000 fleas on the camel, to get their noses in my tent, and suck me dry. I have a sincerely held belief that Government Almighty should FUCK OFF AND DIE when it comes to them making my charity choices for me, telling me which medicines I can and cannot take, and whether or not I can blow on a cheap plastic flute w/o a prescription! See www.churchofsqrls.com for more advocacy of REAL religious freedom! If the Scientologists can have religious freedom, why not the Scienfoologists?!?!

  • Daily Beatings||

    Never heard of Brandeburg v. Ohio? The Brandenburg test has never been seriously challenged since its inception in 1969. Inflammatory speech is protected speech unless coupled with imminent lawless action. He knows what he said is bullshit. It's kowtowing to the proggies for whatever reason.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    he wants to be in politics like his brother and father. Got to establish himself as a mindless socialist to do so. if he made any sense at all he would be branded a libertarian or heaven forbid a conservative. Then he would have to leave NY to get elected

  • Grant||

    “Hate speech” is a totally subjective and opinionated concept. If the Constitution doesn’t protect “hate speech” it doesn’t protect any speech.

  • Stephdumas||

    A bit off-topic but I spotted that one from Breitbart

  • glenux||

    I basically agree, but I felt compelled to tweak a basic misunderstanding.

    The constitution and the specifically the Bill of Rights, is not a document to tell you what you CAN and Cannot do.

    I can do anything, so long as it does not violate some one elses' rights or what is stated for me that is forbidden.

    The Bill of Rights a list of demands to the federal government of certain specific rights
    that not only will it not violate, but it actually has to protect.

    Whether there are any Bill or Rights or not, I still have those rights.
    The people still had those rights BEFORE they even created the constitution and the bill of rights.
    Get it?

    I have the right to eat, but that is not in the constitution.

    History
    Probably one of the first constitutional crises was over the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Actions of 1798 by John Adams, megalomaniac, who wanted to be king.

    Among other things people were imprisoned for publicly criticizing the President.
    In reaction to this Jefferson and Madison published the
    Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1898
    Which said that it is the job of the States to intercede if the
    federal government does too far to sensor
    1st Amendment protected free speech.

    You are correct.
    Hate speech is actually part of the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
    It is abundantly clear that Cuomo has not read the constitution and he is banking
    on the conclusion that we won't.

  • glenux||

    Frankly, I don't know of any other way to kill these domestic Islamic radical terrorists.
    Pam Geller is a heroine to me.
    The only way to kill these terrorists is SMOKE THEM OUT with so-called blasphemous speech.
    Provoke them?
    Absolutely.
    They are not going to dictate to me what I can and can not say.

    May be I will hold my own Mohamed Cartoon contest and be waiting for them.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is similar to an LP argument for repealing discrimination laws. I want to be able to identify ku-klux establishmentarians that seek to have me coerced specifically so I can refuse to trade with them. Instead I seek to trade with people like myself and vote for them that allow me to exercise this prerogative. It is good that governments be colorblind and not enforce religions, but that does not mean they need to send men with guns out to blind the rest of us.

  • You're Kidding||

    But, but, but.......that would be entrapment!

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    The reason the SCJ consistently sides with the strict interpretation of the 1st amendment is:
    "Who gets to decide what is hate speech"?
    Limiting speech one group doesn't like, is opening the door to limiting all speech.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ever BEEN to Garland? The municipality takes advantage of the 21st Amendment to preserve prohibition locally. You cannot order a beer and a hot dog, just like in mohammedan countries. Women there are expected to squeeze out pups for religious upbringing, and there is no shortage of ethnic, superstitious and collectivist hatred and violence. Garland is so close to being a perfectly mohammedan community that anyone from the Middle East can shave, buy a hat or put eyeholes in a pillowcase, move there and join in the public stoning of hippies. "The FREE exercise" of old-time religion is not subject to spoilsport interpretations that rule out good-fun legal lynchings and gunplay.

  • jmrathbun||

  • You're Kidding||

    But, he still says case law supersedes the Constitution.

  • Nike Air Max España Out||

    Let’s Do That.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online