Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First

[FGB]

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
By Eugene Volokh

June 19, 2017 at 11:37 AM

From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

More... https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

 

[EternalFantasies]

The snowflakes are going to be so disappointed.

 

[Rightguide]

The SCOTUS just fired a torpedo below the waterline of the Democrat manned USS Political Correctness.

 

[FGB]

I am ...actually sort of proud of them.

Damn!

 

[Rightguide]

I am ...actually sort of proud of them.

Damn!

Me too, the Constitution and the First Amendment still mean something.

 

[phrodeau]

Kathy Griffin will be pleased.

 

[Wrong Element]

Hard to believe the same justice who wrote the majority opinion here was the one dissenter in the Westboro Baptist case.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This question seems so self-evident, I'm surprised it even got to SCOTUS.

 

[water505]

Hard Rom will now declare the Supreme Court is made up of Nazi collaborators and Klan sympathizers because they ruled with the First Amendment instead of the preposterous idea that individuals have the right not be offended.

 

[water505]

This question seems so self-evident, I'm surprised it even got to SCOTUS.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[renard_ruse]

That's not really what the case was about. This decision is actually very bad in my opinion, but I don't have time or inclination to comment on it. The ethnic insult aspect was only a very small part of what this decision was about, and I think it was the wrong decision. I agree with the appellate court dissent from Judge Lourie.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hard to believe the same justice who wrote the majority opinion here was the one dissenter in the Westboro Baptist case.

Not if you truly understood Alito's dissent in the Westboro case. He adjudged petitioner Snyder to have met the requirements of damages under the civil tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

Tam is about a Constitutionally deficient piece of legislation governing "offensive" trademarks applicable to a large group of people.

It's a huge distinction -- one which the other justices chose not to make, but that hardly makes Alito's effort at drawing a line patently unreasonable.

 

[Nubian_Legend]

So would this apply in the workplace? or No...? I'm guessing corporate rules supercede the Supreme Court rulings.

 

[renard_ruse]

Not that it matters now, sadly, but Judge Lourie banged it out in the appellate court dissent. Spot on IMO...

Judge Lourie disagreed with the majority in many ways outlined below:

Judge Lourie argued that the Lanham Act has dated back 70 years, it has been continuously applied during that time and it now being found to be unconstitutional seems bizarre.

Judge Lourie cites to stare decisis as the first reason why the majority made a mistake.

Additionally, Judge Lourie said that denial of an applicant's trademark does not deny their right to speak freely.

Contending that the mark holder may still generally use the mark as it wishes; without federal registration, "it simply lacks access to certain federal statutory enforcement mechanisms for excusing others from confusingly similar uses of the mark."

Judge Lourie also said that there are other ways for the mark holder to have protections, including common law rights.

Finally, Judge Lourie also determined that trademarks are exclusively commercial speech and should therefore not be analyzed under strict scrutiny...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matal_v._Tam#Dissent_by_Judge_Lourie

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So would this apply in the workplace? or No...? I'm guessing corporate rules supercede the Supreme Court rulings.

No. As an employee acting on "behalf" of a company or corporation, you do not have a Constitutional right under the First Amendment to insult its customers, fellow employees or upper management.

It's not a matter of corporate rules "superceding" Constitutional law. It's simply about the contract employment relationship appropriately binding you to behavior beneficial TO your employer IN RETURN FOR your paycheck.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Good for Murica, Bad for AJ

It will be interesting to read 4est_4est_Gump's analysis of this decision.

After all, he's basically the guy who invented the theory of victimhood-via-hate-speech (in his Master's thesis in philosophy on "ad hominem by class".

I remember well how he accused Laurel herself here of that. Laurel "denigrated his tribe" (he's a situational Native American at times). How did she denigrate his tribe? By being a white woman and having the temerity to disagree with him. His whole continued existence on Lit has been solely to "teach her a lesson".

#ShutYourMouthAndKnowYourRoleWoman


Oh and vettebigot? "politically correct" is simply shorthand for "we wanna say 'nigger' without repercussion".

 

[magicalmoments]

I can see the logic of the ruling although I believe it is going to cause more hate crime than USA currently has.

So I can now legitimately say why I think Christian protestantism in all of it's organised forms is the most evil cult existing in the world today.

That's good.

Can I encourage others to commit violence against them under the terms of this decision or is that a separate issue?

 

[jaF0]

This is about a bunch of Asian guys who wanted to name a band using a word some other Asian guys found derogatory.

This isn't about the larger issue of hate speech designed to inflame or antagonize and cause harm.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Kathy Griffin will be pleased.

Really?


Because she was charged and arrested and will now go free?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So would this apply in the workplace? or No...? I'm guessing corporate rules supercede the Supreme Court rulings.

Of course not.

The employer owns the job...

 

[Pookie]

It will be interesting to read 4est_4est_Gump's analysis of this decision.

After all, he's basically the guy who invented the theory of victimhood-via-hate-speech (in his Master's thesis in philosophy on "ad hominem by class".

I remember well how he accused Laurel herself here of that. Laurel "denigrated his tribe" (he's a situational Native American at times). How did she denigrate his tribe? By being a white woman and having the temerity to disagree with him. His whole continued existence on Lit has been solely to "teach her a lesson".

#ShutYourMouthAndKnowYourRoleWoman


Oh and vettebigot? "politically correct" is simply shorthand for "we wanna say 'nigger' without repercussion".

Pookahontas smiles.

 

[water505]

It will be interesting to read 4est_4est_Gump's analysis of this decision.

After all, he's basically the guy who invented the theory of victimhood-via-hate-speech (in his Master's thesis in philosophy on "ad hominem by class".

I remember well how he accused Laurel herself here of that. Laurel "denigrated his tribe" (he's a situational Native American at times). How did she denigrate his tribe? By being a white woman and having the temerity to disagree with him. His whole continued existence on Lit has been solely to "teach her a lesson".

#ShutYourMouthAndKnowYourRoleWoman


Oh and vettebigot? "politically correct" is simply shorthand for "we wanna say 'nigger' without repercussion".

It appears MaggotDownSouth has a split personality. In one post he pompously lectures others on words they never used and in another sounds like the worst kind of bigot with Tourette's Syndrome and uncontrollably spewing racial slurs.

 

[contrifan32]

I can see the logic of the ruling although I believe it is going to cause more hate crime than USA currently has.

Is there such a thing as a love crime?

 

[Pookie]

It appears MaggotDownSouth has a split personality. In one post he pompously lectures others on words they never used and in another sounds like the worst kind of bigot with Tourette's Syndrome and uncontrollably spewing racial slurs.

Speaking of split personalities ...


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2249132939/120521_Ken_Bus_Pass_ID_Photo_400x400.jpg


Does Ken know you committed liticide, miles?

 

[TalkRadio]

Pookahontas smiles.

Are you referring to Jeanne Shaheen or Elizabeth Warren?

Jeanne Shaheen not talking ancestry with Liz Warren
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us..._shaheen_not_talking_ancestry_with_liz_warren