It is very concerning that our leaders do not understand the First Amendment. This amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution and our society.
Joe Biden keeps making mistakes. It is hard to count how many times Joe Biden has said his “You can’t yell fire at a crowded theatre” speech. It’s used by him to justify limiting speech and/or curbing Second Amendment rights.
.@JoeBiden introduces his gun plan:
“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.” pic.twitter.com/shOkaXmLqH
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) April 8, 2021
As I have previously stated on the subject:
These are the words of government politicians, just before they try to violate your rights. People often use the phrase “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to try and curb speech, but they don’t really understand the context. It was in non-binding dictates in a case that was later overturned, so it wasn’t a binding thought. It is clear that people don’t know the law when they use it.
From the Atlantic:
Rottman stated that it is “worse-than-useless” in defining constitutional speech boundaries. It can be used metaphorically against any unpopular speech. Worse, its supporters are approving one of the most expansive censorship decisions by the Court. It is, in Ken White’s words, “the most pervasive lazy cheat” in American dialog about free speech.
Governor. Kathy Hochul was also present at the press conference, speaking not only about the shooting but about how they need to pressure social media to take down hate speech.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 16, 2022
Hochul stated, “So let’s be honest about the role of elected leaders.” Hochul stated, “Yeah. I’ll defend the First Amendment every day of the week. But you don’t protect hate speech. Incendiary speech is not protected. In a packed theater, it’s not permitted to shout “fire!” Speech is limited”.
Hochul and Biden both have law degrees, but they don’t seem like they have a basic knowledge of the law. This should be concerning to all of us as their first response to many issues seems to have been how to curtail speech rights. The First Amendment was created specifically to protect incendiary expression, which people might not like or find offensive. This is the purpose of the Amendment.
Yes, the government should look at imminent threats and lawless actions. They seem to be missing the opportunities to stop murderers or the clues so many times. There is a distinction between criminal threats and speech that might be offensive but not criminal. This First Amendment protection is in place, regardless of whether we like it or condemn it. What happens when social media attempts to regulate speech and who decides what “hate speech” is? We now get to the question of private companies being allowed to set their own rules, which is something they can certainly do. We are now in dangerous territory when we get into government pressure and dictates. We have seen this already on Twitter. It seems that the motto is “Go after any speech that doesn’t fit the political narrative that we want to push”. This results in interference in elections, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story. This slippery slope already has led to the Disinformation Governance Board.
It’s alarming that leaders at the top don’t understand the rights they have been sworn to uphold.
Bit ominious how nearly evry crisis/controvsersy—covid, the vaccine, climate change, election results certain people don’t like, the wrong guy buying Twitter, mass shootings—now quickly involves some kind of argument for the necessity of speech restriction https://t.co/I9tzlCTqjL
— Armin Rosen (@ArminRosen) May 16, 2022