Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Hear why MTG voted against bill to combat antisemitism" video.

  1. Are we supposed to support a blatantly unconstitutional law because MTG opposes it? 😂
    140
  2. ​ @USEismydream  The bill is unconstitutional.
    125
  3. ​Talking bs is protected by the First Amendment.
    94
  4. That sounds weird but it's true. There are no thought crimes, and speech that isn't a true threat or a call to violence or conspiracy to commit a crime is usually protected by 1A.
    15
  5. Antisemitic speech is constitutionally protected unless (1) it rises to the level of a threat or incitement to violence, when it can be a crime; or (2) occurs in a workplace in violation of Title VII, or in a classroom or dorm in violation of Title VI, when it can be a tort. This is very simple.
    9
  6. @justinstephenson9360  The definition of incitement is very narrow, and the US has no thought crimes, or prescribed personal associations. Its laws against discrimination apply to the workplace, school, public spaces, means of transportation, and so forth. You can say whatever you want -- you can even agitate for repealing Title VII and Title IX. That's your First Amendment right.
    9
  7. This law is blatantly unconstitutional.
    6
  8.  @gcelosegui  Precisely. You're also free to talk about it in most contexts, too.
    5
  9.  @subobing3551  That's not the point. Actually, it occurs in one of America's finest poems: Robert Lowell, "For the Union Dead." Black stand-up comics use it, too.
    5
  10. @erincoco612  If a gag order is needed to protect legal process, then obviously absent the order, the speech is NOT prohibited.
    5
  11. @maggiemaloney8599  Because Brandenburg v. Ohio. Because Watts v. United States. Because Virginia v. Black. Because it is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. You can't even ban cross burning or calling for revolution unless it meets one of those criteria, evincing intent to cause an imminent breach of the peace or to intimidate a particular person or group of people who are present when you said those words, or performed those acts (for symbolic or expressive conduct). It's not a gray area. It is unconstitutional.
    4
  12. @maggiemaloney8599  There is no contradiction between complaining of discrimination and not wanting it criminalized. I've been discriminated against plenty of times. It never crossed my mind to want someone charged with a crime over it. How ridiculous. If I have a viable lawsuit, it's my job to bring it.
    4
  13. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It's not even close. Congress is ignoring its oath to support the Constitution. This law is a shameless fundraising gimmick.
    4
  14. Yes, but what if someone whacky like MTG is against it? Don't the Cool Kids have to be for it? 😂
    4
  15. Well, but talking about MTG is so much more important. I mean, what's an amendment here or there?
    4
  16. @erincoco612  The First Amendment certainly does prohibit government from making hate speech illegal:  Brandenburg v. Ohio; Watts v. United States; RAV v. City of St Paul; Virginia v. Black --- those are just a few of the cases that say so. It is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. It's not a gray area. It's unconstitutional.
    4
  17. @erincoco612  I just cited four Supreme Court cases. In two of them, cross burning could not be prosecuted under local laws prohibiting it, in Virginia and in St. Paul, Minnesota. That's because the law as written or as applied was struck down as unconstitutional.
    4
  18. Why don't the Smart People and the Cool Kids know this law is unconstitutional? It sounds like I'm kidding, but actually . . .
    3
  19. @TriggaTrey361  The problem is that civil rights advocates and peace demonstrators are also accused of spreading hate. That is a problem. I consider it a very serious problem, and a false accusation.
    3
  20. ​ @maggiemaloney8599 The fact that she voted against a bill doesn't make it a good law. Even she can't do that.
    2
  21.  @maggiemaloney8599  I hope they let you see my reply. Two, actually.
    2
  22. ​ @lorraineclark2307 It's blatant fundraising.
    2
  23. @TriggaTrey361  "Accountable" in what way? And to whom? Your freedom of association gives you the right to avoid anyone whose speech you find reprehensible. I know I do. Do you think passing highly divisive laws will solve divisiveness? We're in need of new crimes, we don't have the largest prison population in the world already?
    2
  24.  @CursedCommentaries  I did not endorse that. I explained how it worked.
    2
  25.  @erincoco612  Hate speech is very much protected. Brandenburg v. Ohio is chock full of it. Counterman v. Colorado has plenty, too.
    2
  26. No. Hate is legal. Hate based on race, creed, color, etc., as a motive for an actual crime increases the sentence, and could make you guilty of both state and federal offenses --- just like __ your spouse for insurance money or to hide fraud is worse than out of jealousy. The press never explains this well. America doesn't have thought crimes.
    2
  27.  @CortexNewsService  Sure. Free speech!
    2
  28. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects stupid speech and stupid religious beliefs. No, I'm not kidding.
    1
  29. @user-tw3kr9if1f  It means whatever the lobbyist with the most money says it means --- just like "reasonable gun law," which even Sandyhook and Uvalde can't get us to come to an agreement about.
    1
  30. Frank Zappa was almost right: "life is high school with money," except now it's 7th grade.
    1
  31.  @MarkLewis-qe4pj  YES IT IS See Brandenburg v. Ohio Watts v. United States Virginia v. Black RAV v. City of St. Paul Start there
    1
  32. @bismarck9  So, we have to keep records on this now??
    1
  33. @SentinalSlice  It's clear that you haven't studied the legal issue. "Hate speech" is not a category of unprotected speech under the First Amendment by any stretch. A business office or other private or restricted speech forum can ban it, but that's different. It's still free speech. You might be confusing it with "hate crime," which requires a predicate crime, and then looks to motive -- not unlike the difference between killing a spouse for insurance money, as opposed to having been battered weekly for two decades and then one day you snap.
    1
  34. @karenturner4888  Yet no one came to UCLA to stop it, when counterprotesters turned up heavily armed. Law enforcement stood down, just like on January 6th. The hate that is taking place is in Gaza: Fifty years of American diplomacy and coalition building against terrorism down the drain. Maybe you should start listening to what Bernie Sanders has been saying about it, if this show isn't to your liking.
    1
  35.  @TriggaTrey361  Is BLM "hate speech?" Is CRT? See the problem?
    1
  36. But why are the Cool Kids passing flagrantly unconstitutional laws? For . . . Fundraising? Maybe.
    1
  37.  @Stopfascists0204  Often, she is, yeah. 😂
    1
  38. But why is Congress voting for a law they know is unconstitutional? A performance to gain more campaign funding for the fall, maybe?
    1
  39.  @danielsoto8601  Er . . . There is this thing called irony. I bet you can look it up and everything, and find out what it's about.
    1
  40. @danielsoto8601  There is this thing people don't want you to know about called irony.
    1
  41. @danielsoto8601  As soon as I write i r o n y, everything gets dark.
    1
  42. @erincoco612   The First Amendment certainly does prohibit government from making hate speech illegal:  Brandenburg v. Ohio Watts v. United States Virginia v. Black RAV v. City of St Paul It is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. You can't even ban cross burning or calling for revolution unless it meets one of those criteria, evincing intent to cause an imminent breach of the peace or to intimidate a particular person or group of people who are present when you said it, or did it (for symbolic or expressive conduct). It's not a gray area. It is unconstitutional. The real question is, why don't you know? You should know.
    1
  43. @erincoco612  Sure, because absent the gag order, you can trash talk about a witness or juror. See how that works? If it were illegal, you wouldn't need the order in the first place.
    1
  44. @justinstephenson9360  I'm talking about the bill they passed, prohibiting certain speech. They are welcome to define things to their heart's content, and to deplore what they find worthy of being deplored --- that's free speech, too. Moreover, NO other country has the robust free speech rights that the United States has, enshrined in its constitution. So international standards are of no legal importance here. See, e.g., Nadine Strossen on that whole subject. This has nothing to do with whether one agrees with the speech they prohibited, or are trying to. Absolutely nothing.
    1
  45. @justinstephenson9360  I had a great-grandparent die in the Holocaust. I know about this stuff.
    1
  46. @erincoco612  You clearly haven't read anything. Right now, people are trying to hold BLM leadership liable for exactly that -- their rhetoric lead to riots, supposedly. Have you ever seen a Supreme Court case? Do you know they are all published?
    1
  47. @erincoco612  Because of Title VII. And because absent a union contract, an employer can usually fire anyone they want.
    1
  48. @erincoco612  Why don't you put down your phone and read about what "true threats" are? Do you know people are suing to try to hold Black Lives Matter responsible for riots and make them pay for the damage? You didn't hear about that? See, because rhetoric. Bad words.
    1
  49. @erincoco612  What do you think of the cases against organizers of the George Floyd protests? Plaintiffs are seeking money to pay for the damage from the riots. I think their speech was protected. The rioters, and the police, are responsible for their actions. The protests were protected by the First Amendment.
    1
  50.  @erincoco612  You can be fired even if they believe you said it. You don't have to say it. Workers without unions have very few rights.
    1
  51. @erincoco612  I'm trying to inform you that people who organized protests after George Floyd are being sued now, because their free speech supposedly led to violence and property damage. I'm getting posts removed for that. I think the protests were fully protected speech and assembly. How about you?
    1
  52. @erincoco612  You see the category "hate speech" in that list? It's not a legal term. Remember the protests that took place in the summer of 2020? Some people are trying to hold the organizers liable for property damage, on the bogus theory that their protected speech led to riots.
    1
  53.  @erincoco612  I'm being censored here, I'm going to stop. Hate speech is not one of the narrow categories you listed. It's a journalistic term, not a legal category.
    1
  54. @erincoco612  Some people call BLM "hate speech" and are suing them right now. See where such nonsense can go?
    1
  55.  @erincoco612  I'm being repeatedly censored now. So I'm out of here.
    1
  56. @erincoco612  There is no amorphous category in the law called "hate speech." Your employer can prescribe your speech generally, while you're at work. That's nothing new, and has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Your boss isn't Congress, passing unconstitutional laws to control everyone.
    1