According to the mainstream media, the right to free speech only covers what they deem as ‘non-hate speech’ now. Who needs the Constitution anyway?
On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo broke out a heapin’ helpin’ of legal know-how, explaining to ignoramuses on Twitter that Pamela Geller’s event encouraging submissions of drawings of Mohammed amounted to “hate speech” apparently uncovered by the Constitution:
it doesn't. hate speech is excluded from protection. dont just say you love the constitution…read it https://t.co/znZJ8cPvpX
— Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
Unfortunately, Cuomo’s attempts to write politically incorrect “hate speech” out of the Constitution have become less and less anomalous. A report this week from Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay at McClatchy asked, “After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?” Naturally, the authors concluded that there should by quoting non-expert constitutional law expert John Szmer of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who kindly explained, “I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction.” That, of course, is not the test of “fighting words” – any politically controversial words could generate a violent reaction. Any attempt to shut down political speech based on the content of the political speech violates the First Amendment (see, e.g., RAV v. St. Paul). That holds true whether the political speech generates violent reaction or not.
Read more: Breitbart