PDA

View Full Version : CNN’s Chris Cuomo claims “hate speech” not protected by First Amendment


Team Sergeant
05-07-2015, 09:35
My comments, I guess Chris Cuomo doesn't remember Westboro Baptist Church funeral protests and GodHatesFags website. Hate speech is alive and well in America. It's only offensive if it's used against islam. (Can anyone see where this is going?)

Thank you Pamela Geller, you are illuminating the issue so even the liberal morons can see what is happening. You go girl! ;)





CNN’s Chris Cuomo claims “hate speech” not protected by First Amendment

Here’s the thing: my work is not “hate speech” in the first place. I tell truths that people don’t want known, and so they label what I do “hate speech.” And in saying that “hate speech” does not have First Amendment protection, Chris Cuomo, who is supposed to be a lawyer, is referring to my work. In effect, what Chris Cuomo is saying is that he wants to live in a dictatorship where some authority decides that certain speech is “hate speech” and outlaws it — or else he thinks he lives in one already. He wants to see a United States in which people’s opinions and views are outlawed, and others are mandated by law. That is just the opposite of what the U.S. Constitution provides for. And it is exactly what I am fighting against in my work. Chris Cuomo is abysmally ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, and here reveals his dark, authoritarian heart. -


See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/cnns-chris-cuomo-claims-hate-speech-not-protected-by-first-amendment.html/#sthash.O7zA20N8.dpuf


More:

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo: The First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech, you know
posted at 11:31 am on May 6, 2015 by Allahpundit

This guy is a professional journalist. And a Yale grad. And a law-school grad.

But let’s be fair. If you polled the media, how many of them would agree? Don’t stomp Cuomo just because he’s bold enough to say what the rest are thinking.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/06/cnn-anchor-chris-cuomo-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-hate-speech-you-know/

Box
05-07-2015, 14:35
...the apocalypse can't get here soon enough.

blacksmoke
05-07-2015, 15:17
Who the f is Chris Cummo? There's no hot woman on Fox by that name. :D Maybe it's supposed to read Christine, or Crissy? Must be woman talking like that.

Sohei
05-07-2015, 17:39
How do these people get chosen to determine what "hate speech" is?

Do they win a lottery...draw numbers...raise their hands and yell, "Me,me!"

ddoering
05-07-2015, 18:21
I'm sure he thinks asking questions wrt HRC is hate speech too.

Bleed Green
05-07-2015, 21:33
I read today he is a lawyer so that would explain a lot plus give most people a new reason to hate lawyers even more.:D

fred111
05-08-2015, 03:53
What do you expect? He works for the Communist News Network (CNN).

glebo
05-08-2015, 06:02
Here in a county in NC folks have their panty's in a wad because some school displayed two Confederate Flags on a trip to Gettysburg....

Why's that not good, when alot of folks are supporting the cartoon contest of muuuuhammmed...

Good for one, but not the other???

Roguish Lawyer
05-08-2015, 08:10
I am going to get a confederate flag with a cartoon of Muhammad superimposed on it and fly if from my 4X4 truck with a gun rack full of AR-15 rifles.

You are a Great American, brother

Box
05-08-2015, 12:05
...I am going to get a confederate flag with a cartoon of Muhammad superimposed on it and fly if from my 4X4 truck with a gun rack full of AR-15 rifles.


Are you going to do it while burning a rainbow flag and oppressing someone????

The Reaper
05-08-2015, 12:16
I am going to get a confederate flag with a cartoon of Muhammad superimposed on it and fly if from my 4X4 truck with a gun rack full of AR-15 rifles.

Don't forget the truck nuts.

TR

x SF med
05-08-2015, 16:16
I am going to get a confederate flag with a cartoon of Muhammad superimposed on it and fly if from my 4X4 truck with a gun rack full of AR-15 rifles.

And Shwarma will sick her 'peaceful' May Day anarchists on you....:eek:

You are a Great American, brother

Agreed, not bright, but brass ones the size of watermelons:lifter

Are you going to do it while burning a rainbow flag and oppressing someone????

From Oppression, Freedom.... we'd be out of a job if there were no oppression...:D

Don't forget the truck nuts.

TR

Those are his, they don't fit in the cab of his truck....:rolleyes:

Richard
05-10-2015, 07:39
Following the anti-whatever 'free speech' money trail - just a 'pet rock.v.2.0' or something more. :confused:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/08/muslim-bashing-can-be-very-lucrative.html#

And so it goes...

Richard

Pete
05-10-2015, 09:50
Following the anti-whatever 'free speech' money trail - just a 'pet rock.v.2.0' or something more. :confused:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/08/muslim-bashing-can-be-very-lucrative.html#

And so it goes...

Richard

No bias in that story that I could see

Stobey
05-10-2015, 18:36
The bullshit expression "hate speech" is just another Alinsky tactic used to silence dissent. What Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, David Wood, et. al. have to say about izlam is the truth.

The truth is only "hate speech" to those who hate the truth!

Richard
05-10-2015, 21:54
The bullshit expression "hate speech" is just another Alinsky tactic used to silence dissent. <snip>

That's but an opinion, not a fact, and 'hate speech' existed long before Alinsky, and - IMO - you're full of s**t if that's what you truly think.

Richard

Stobey
05-10-2015, 22:40
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - as I am to mine. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Hand
05-11-2015, 07:52
I have read many a tweet, blog, post, op-ed, etc... since terrorism took a few to the face in Garland. There seem to be three sides to stand on with the "Draw Mohammed" event (as well as saying anything diminishing about Islam or Muslims in general):

You can say what you want about whatever you want (Free Speech).
You can say what you want, but saying anything negative about Muslims or Islam (or Obama for that matter) is inflammatory and racist/bigoted and you are an asshole if you do it (Free Speech if they (where "they" is/are feminist/liberals/progressives/pro-abortion/pro-man made climate change etc...) agree with and rubber stamp what you say.
You can't say what you want, because if you speak in a defamatory fashion about Islam/Muslims, you SHOULD get blown up. (I have no freaking idea how to even name this stance)


While I absolutely detest the ideology behind the definition of words like "white-privilege", "whitesplaining", "fat-shaming", hell, I'm getting to the point where even the word "shaming" is starting to sound the way chewing aluminum foil feels, I'm starting to see that the folks that create these words/ideas and then use them to silence the opinion of those who don't agree with their stance are the very people these foolish ideas apply to.
Folks who feel bad that they were born on third base, so to speak, and go way out of their way to distance themselves from the people who would aim the smallest drop of disdain at terrorist (because they are someone sons too).

*Note I didn't have to say sons and daughters. Hmm sounds like Islam needs a good dose of feminism. Equal opportunity jihad, as it were.

Box
05-11-2015, 08:15
Just so I understand...

What is the difference between "free" speech and "hate" speech ?

Can I no longer say, "I hate the Boston Red Sox!" when I am talking about baseball?

Do I now have to place it in context because Fred Lynn and Jim Rice ruined "bat-day" for me as a young Baltimore Orioles fan?
...what if I frame it as "the emotional oppression of the lower class by rich, entitled upper class athletes" and instead of hating the Red Sox, I am just demanding justice for them causing emotional distress to poor children that could would only be able to get a black Louisville slugger when it comes free with a general admission ticket to a ball game?

This entire free speech-versus-hate-speech confuses the ever loving shit out of me.

MR2
05-11-2015, 10:28
Just so I understand...

What is the difference between "free" speech and "hate" speech ?

I like to smile when I call people fucking assholes, that way it is not hate speech.


BTW, well played Richard.

Team Sergeant
05-11-2015, 11:35
So wait let me get this straight, the left-wing liberals/progressives/socialists say it's not OK to bait mooslems by offending their islamic "religion". OK

But it is OK bash a dead American veteran that bled for this country, its OK to say F**K Chris Kyle.

Abby Martin thinks so and she just pissed in the corn flakes of every veteran in the United States. Is she dead? Nope, cause us American veterans believe in defending her free speech just like Pamela Gellar's.

Abby Martin, you've nothing to fear from the us real snipers, we don't shoot Americans, even if they're complete idiots such as yourself.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2015/05/08/former-rt-anchor-abby-martin-dons-fck-chris-kyle-t-shirt


Isn't it enlightening to pick on dead American war veterans!!! I bet your parents are so proud.

PedOncoDoc
05-11-2015, 11:37
So wait let me get this straight, the left-wing liberals/progressives/socialists say it's not OK to bait mooslems by offending their islamic "religion". OK

But it is OK bash a dead American veteran that bled for this country, its OK to say F**K Chris Kyle.

Abby Martin thinks so and she just pissed in the corn flakes of every veteran in the United States. Is she dead? Nope, cause us American veterans believe in defending her free speech just like Pamela Gellar's.

Abby Martin, you've nothing to fear from the us real snipers, we don't shoot Americans, even if they're complete idiots such as yourself.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2015/05/08/former-rt-anchor-abby-martin-dons-fck-chris-kyle-t-shirt


Isn't it enlightening to pick on dead American war veterans!!! I bet your parents are so proud.

Are you sure the T-shirt wasn't just promoting necrophilia?

Team Sergeant
05-11-2015, 11:39
Are you sure the T-shirt wasn't just promoting necrophilia?

You're sooooo right! I didn't take that into account! She's a left-wing wacko for sure! I would not put it past her.

Hand
05-11-2015, 12:13
She absolutely HATES Chris Kyle.
In her mind

He is a liar
He is a sniper, which (she thinks) makes him less of a man because he hides and shoots people in the back.
He was a part of the "military industrial complex"
He killed women and children and enjoyed it


And that's just what I've gathered. That chick is most definitely as far left as you can get. On top of that she is pretty quick to point out how socialism would be much better for our country than the current broken system. Sadly, I see some of her more dangerous views being echoed by surprisingly many of the millennial generation.

SF0
05-11-2015, 15:06
I have read many a tweet, blog, post, op-ed, etc... since terrorism took a few to the face in Garland. There seem to be three sides to stand on with the "Draw Mohammed" event (as well as saying anything diminishing about Islam or Muslims in general):

You can say what you want about whatever you want (Free Speech).
You can say what you want, but saying anything negative about Muslims or Islam (or Obama for that matter) is inflammatory and racist/bigoted and you are an asshole if you do it (Free Speech if they (where "they" is/are feminist/liberals/progressives/pro-abortion/pro-man made climate change etc...) agree with and rubber stamp what you say.
You can't say what you want, because if you speak in a defamatory fashion about Islam/Muslims, you SHOULD get blown up. (I have no freaking idea how to even name this stance)


While I absolutely detest the ideology behind the definition of words like "white-privilege", "whitesplaining", "fat-shaming", hell, I'm getting to the point where even the word "shaming" is starting to sound the way chewing aluminum foil feels, I'm starting to see that the folks that create these words/ideas and then use them to silence the opinion of those who don't agree with their stance are the very people these foolish ideas apply to.
Folks who feel bad that they were born on third base, so to speak, and go way out of their way to distance themselves from the people who would aim the smallest drop of disdain at terrorist (because they are someone sons too).

*Note I didn't have to say sons and daughters. Hmm sounds like Islam needs a good dose of feminism. Equal opportunity jihad, as it were.

She absolutely HATES Chris Kyle.
In her mind

He is a liar
He is a sniper, which (she thinks) makes him less of a man because he hides and shoots people in the back.
He was a part of the "military industrial complex"
He killed women and children and enjoyed it


And that's just what I've gathered. That chick is most definitely as far left as you can get. On top of that she is pretty quick to point out how socialism would be much better for our country than the current broken system. Sadly, I see some of her more dangerous views being echoed by surprisingly many of the millennial generation.

Behold, the mob. Fickle in opinion, with an antagonistic effect on the collective intelligence of the group. They cannot form any original thought or ideas, so their world views and local opinions are entirely crafted through poorly researched, but immensely popular social media posts. But what can be expected when many of these individuals' crowning life achievements are remembering to wipe, and how many Instagrams they can post in an hour?

Stobey
05-11-2015, 15:44
This is just an FYI. Didn't know whether to post here or w/regard to Pamela Geller's event on 5/3/15. It is interesting to note...

Jihad Watch: The most attacked site on the Internet
MAY 11, 2015 8:06 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Daniel Cid, the Chief Technical Officer of the web security firm Sucuri, has informed me that of the thousands of websites his company protects, including sites much bigger than this one, Jihad Watch is by far the most frequently attacked:

Here at Sucuri we protect thousands of websites through our enterprise Website Firewall. One of the most disruptive attacks we see are known as Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attacks. These attacks are designed to disrupt the service and take down a website by overloading it with fake requests and making it inaccessible to everyone else.

My comment: If you’re catching flak, that means you’re over the target.


Jihad Watch is one of those thousands of websites we help protect, and by far the most attacked we have in our network. It is targeted daily, by massive and large scale DDoS attempts that exceed 100Gbps of traffic on most days.

What is interesting is that DDoS attacks usually last for a few hours, up to days and go away. However, Jihad Watch has been under multiple, daily attacks, for more than a year (ranging from distributed advanced SYN floods, HTTP GET Floods, DNS/SSDP/NTP amplification attacks and many others).

Daniel Cid
CTO
Sucuri, Inc.

Denial of Service (DoS) Attack in the context of Jihad Watch really means Denial of Freedom of Speech. It is the only response our enemies can use against the site, as they cannot refute what we say on the facts. They know what we say is true, and they hate that. In their authoritarianism and intellectual bankruptcy, they resort to trying to silence us. Islamic supremacists and Leftists always try to silence truth-tellers, as evidenced by their fabrication and use of the propaganda smear term “Islamophobe,” and by their attacking a free speech event with AK47’s.

The fact that Jihad Watch has now made top spot of most cyber-attacked sites being protected by Sucuri (an industry leader in website security) vividly demonstrates that what we say is otherwise unassailable, and that the enemies of freedom are desperate — and as thuggish on the Net as they are in the real world.

My comment: If you’re catching flak, that means you’re over the target.

Monsoon65
05-13-2015, 19:11
Funny how Cuomo claims "hate speech" isn't covered under 1A, but Boston University pretty much said, "Hey, it's OK" for this "professor"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/11/boston-university-condemns-prof-racist-tweets-after-terrier-alums-bark/

They back-pedaled after the alum's got pissed, tho.

Hand
05-14-2015, 07:08
From the article above:

“Professor Grundy should and must have the freedom to publicly express her opinions on controversial topics. Unfortunately, though, [she] could be punished if she were to send such tweets through the BU computer network, as the university bans ‘transmitting...offensive’ material,” Robert Shibley of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) told FoxNews.com.

This makes sense so far...


“In addition, if she were a student, she could also potentially be punished for violating policies banning ‘bigotry, hatred, and intolerance,’ and for not expressing her opinion ‘in good taste and decency.’ … [BU] should eliminate these policies so that it can defend every student and faculty member's right to free speech – not just Professor Grundy's.”

Huh? It sounds like this dude is saying that she couldn't get away with what she said if she were a student instead of a professor and a representative of the college, and that BU should lift its policies so that students could post racists, bigoted things on twitter too?


From an article on Monday this week:
There is support for professor Grundy on campus, however. The group People of Color Coalition is standing behind Grundy, as is junior Noor Toraif. Toraif told the Herald she doesn’t think Grundy is racist because she and other blacks can’t be. “I don’t think reverse racism against white folks is a thing,” claimed Toraif. “You need to have institutional and systemic power in order to be racist. People of color like Professor Grundy don’t have that. … I’m 100 percent supportive of her and excited for her to come to campus.”

For its part, Boston University released a statement on Grundy’s comments.

“While we recognize that Dr. Grundy has the right to hold and express personal opinions, BU does not condone racism or bigotry in any form, and we are offended by such statements,” said BU spokesman Colin Riley. The university made no indication as to what its next move may be.

Source. (http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/students-split-over-racist-bu-professor-as-university-walks-the-line/)


Bam! There it is, "people of color can't be racists". That idea brings a lot of the strange justification for excusing black on white crime/discrimination etc into better light IMO. I wonder if this strange idea pervades the media who seem to overlook "reverse" discrimination while they focus on regular(?) discrimination in vivid detail.
Furthermore, if one needs "systemic and institutional power" to be racist, doesn't that also absolve most of white America from the ability to be racists as well?

I'm suspicious about this story, if you look at the tweets in the link I posted, they are vehemently anti-white people, yet, for a professor, surprisingly misplaced at times:
"there is no race except europeans who kidnapped and transported human beings in order to enslave them and their offspring for life".

This tweet is the one that really makes me wonder how much of this is real. How could any person who has had a history class ever really think this to be true. Furthermore, how many students of today believe this to be true?

sinjefe
05-14-2015, 07:13
^^^^^ Even though the actual definition of racism makes no mention of "needing institutional and systemic power" to be one:

"Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"

and

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Don't see anything there about how much power one has. I guess racism really means whatever the offended person wants it to mean.

ddoering
05-14-2015, 17:00
Their definition fits their agenda.

Hand
05-15-2015, 06:48
Don't see anything there about how much power one has. I guess racism really means whatever the offended person wants it to mean.

There is a quote, I can't remember where or who at the moment, but it has something to do with taking over the language, maybe it was something from 1984? It does seem to be a common thread among the progressive movement though as they seem to be re-purposing many words including racism, privilege, heck even free-speech.

PedOncoDoc
05-15-2015, 07:23
Huh? It sounds like this dude is saying that she couldn't get away with what she said if she were a student instead of a professor and a representative of the college, and that BU should lift its policies so that students could post racists, bigoted things on twitter too?

Robert Shibley is a childhood friend of mine and has tackled several cases of restricted free speech/constitutional rights in the ivory tower.

He is defending their right to express their opinions, no matter how deplorable they may be.

Airbornelawyer
05-15-2015, 13:28
There is a quote, I can't remember where or who at the moment, but it has something to do with taking over the language, maybe it was something from 1984? It does seem to be a common thread among the progressive movement though as they seem to be re-purposing many words including racism, privilege, heck even free-speech.

This idea, which boils down to "I'm not racist because I define 'racist' as 'not me'", certainly fits into the rules of Orwellian Newspeak. It is also a classic example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" where an argument assumes the answer to the question it presumes to ask. "X is racist because a racist it one who believes X".

I suppose it is an example of what in 1984 is called "doublethink", holding two simultaneously incompatible beliefs. Many so-called Progressives seem to genuinely believe they are not racists while at the same time defining people into groups by their race, among other categories, and assigning privileges to certain people based on their membership in these groups. This is, as sinjefe notes above, pretty much the definition of racism outside of the Progressive's own Newspeak dictionary.

Though it is really more Through the Looking-Glass than 1984:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

sinjefe
05-15-2015, 13:45
I have found that the people who traffic in using these logical fallacies are unreasonable, illogical and not worth debating because their minds can't be changed.

The only thing you can do when encountering one is throat punch them.

Badger52
05-15-2015, 15:16
Bam! There it is, "people of color can't be racists".Completely consistent with Holder's view that a mainstream hetero white person can't be the victim of a hate-crime because they are not a "member of a historically disadvantaged class."

Vomitous.

miclo18d
05-15-2015, 17:10
I have found that the people who traffic in using these logical fallacies are unreasonable, illogical and not worth debating because their minds can't be changed.

The only thing you can do when encountering one is throat punch them.
Bazinga!

The phrase I use is "God help them when the revolution starts!"

Team Sergeant
05-15-2015, 18:12
This idea, which boils down to "I'm not racist because I define 'racist' as 'not me'", certainly fits into the rules of Orwellian Newspeak. It is also a classic example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" where an argument assumes the answer to the question it presumes to ask. "X is racist because a racist it one who believes X".

I suppose it is an example of what in 1984 is called "doublethink", holding two simultaneously incompatible beliefs. Many so-called Progressives seem to genuinely believe they are not racists while at the same time defining people into groups by their race, among other categories, and assigning privileges to certain people based on their membership in these groups. This is, as sinjefe notes above, pretty much the definition of racism outside of the Progressive's own Newspeak dictionary.

Though it is really more Through the Looking-Glass than 1984:

Always made me wonder why an ivy league university application even has race as a fill in the box. You'd think to be "equal" they would be race blind. Silly liberals/progressives/socialists.

Richard
05-15-2015, 19:32
Always made me wonder why an ivy league university application even has race as a fill in the box. You'd think to be "equal" they would be race blind.

Craig Wilder's "Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities" explains it all very well.

Richard

RomanCandle
05-18-2015, 13:10
From the article above:



This makes sense so far...



Huh? It sounds like this dude is saying that she couldn't get away with what she said if she were a student instead of a professor and a representative of the college, and that BU should lift its policies so that students could post racists, bigoted things on twitter too?


From an article on Monday this week:


Bam! There it is, "people of color can't be racists". That idea brings a lot of the strange justification for excusing black on white crime/discrimination etc into better light IMO. I wonder if this strange idea pervades the media who seem to overlook "reverse" discrimination while they focus on regular(?) discrimination in vivid detail.
Furthermore, if one needs "systemic and institutional power" to be racist, doesn't that also absolve most of white America from the ability to be racists as well?

I'm suspicious about this story, if you look at the tweets in the link I posted, they are vehemently anti-white people, yet, for a professor, surprisingly misplaced at times:
"there is no race except europeans who kidnapped and transported human beings in order to enslave thj life".

This tweet is the one that really makes me wonder how much of this is real. How could any person who has had a history class ever really think this to be true. Furthermore, how many students of today believe this to be true?

Hmmm maybe someone should publicly point out to this clown that most slaves were delivered to the slave traders by members of their own race. There was a well established market and generally the brokers and transporters did not have to go and capture the slave candidates themselves. Maybe that'll flush out the real story.

Hand
05-20-2015, 07:34
Robert Shibley is a childhood friend of mine and has tackled several cases of restricted free speech/constitutional rights in the ivory tower.

He is defending their right to express their opinions, no matter how deplorable they may be.

Thank you for that clarification. Actually, that makes the article even stranger, a somber note amidst a wall of what appears to be nearly satire.