One common concept that we hear a lot of talk about is the idea of a ‘mind virus.’ Elon Musk talks about it:
The woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 12, 2022
Gad Saad talks about it:
Dear @WalterIsaacson, if you wish to know more about the origins of the woke mind virus (and the associated mind vaccine), you might want to read the following book:https://t.co/90Jlt3QV9v
— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) September 8, 2023
Lots of people talk about it. And a prime example of a mind virus is the constant repetition that there is a hate speech exception to the right of free expression in the First Amendment. The latest example of this comes from Representative Nick LaLota:
— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) December 24, 2023
If you are having trouble reading it, it says:
Our First Amendment comes with very few limitations. Yet, one of those worthy limitations is hate speech.
A first-year law student understands this and so should the presidents of our ‘greatest’ institutions of learning.
In case one is wondering, although he deleted it, we have seen the post for ourselves. For some reason, even when a person deletes a post, we can still sometimes see it in the app, and this was one of those times.
And if you are thinking ‘stupid Democrat,’ well … not exactly:
Republican congressman btw pic.twitter.com/6wrepx1S4f
— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) December 24, 2023
But, of course, this is a Northern Republican, which would be pretty much a Democrat if this was in Texas. Honestly, we never even heard of the guy before today but we still feel safe assuming that 1) he probably won’t score very high on any conservative scorecard and 2) he’s still probably better than the Democrat alternatives. As William F. Buckley said, we should vote for ‘the most right, viable candidate who could win.’ And in New York State, that involves a lot of holding your nose as you vote if you are at all conservative.
And the bizarre thing about this viral idea is that it is completely separated from reality. Just a few years ago, in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.
That case involved a rock band that is called The Slants. The entire band is made up of Asian Americans and they wanted to use this slur as the name of the band as a way of ‘reclaiming’ it, much the way Richard Pryor is said to have reclaimed the n-word. And like many bands, they sought to trademark their name only for the Trademark office to say that they can’t do that, because it was a racial slur, and the statues allowing for trademark also prohibited trademarks that were disparaging of persons.
And the Supreme Court struck down this part of the trademark statutes as unconstitutional. The trademark statutes stand as a whole, but this part is a dead letter. And none of this turned on whether or not the band was actually attempting to disparage Asian Americans, but on the view that even if it was, it was unconstitutional to punish that expression by denying them a trademark. That is why shortly after this decision, federal courts ruled that the Washington Redskins could keep their trademark—shortly before they voluntarily relinquished it anyway, to the milquetoast name ‘Commanders.’
(You know honestly, we don’t care very much about whether they kept the name ‘Redskins.’ But could they at least find a new name that is interesting? That pops a little? That has a little life in it? We fall asleep halfway through reading names like Commanders or Guardians. Like we thought that the name ‘Washington Airmen’—named after the Tuskegee Airmen—would be a better name. But no one listened to us.)
This wasn’t the only time the Supreme Court affirmed the right to engage in so-called hate speech, but it is the most recent and it was unanimous. So, if you are a leftist who worships Saint Ruth Bader of Ginsburg, even your hero believes hate speech is free speech. And if the Supreme Court had to decide the same issue again today, we believe it would be at least eight votes for freedom of expression, with the only question mark being the new Justice Jackson.
And yet you constantly hear the claim that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. It is completely contrary to the plain language and precedent, but that never stops this mind virus. This doofus even said it was something every first year law student learns, which is just not true and calls into question the quality of his legal education.
Naturally, this led to a lot of dragging:
A GOP Congressman -- @RepLaLota -- says "hate speech" is a "worthy exception" to the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 23, 2023
There are many who have been convinced by censorship advocates to believe this. But Rep. LaLota graduated from Hofstra Law. At least he deleted it. pic.twitter.com/CWa1ScUyp5
Yeah... pic.twitter.com/ffjfjXDEw0
— Chad Felix Greene 🇮🇱 (@chadfelixg) December 23, 2023
There is no "hate speech" exception to the first ammendment @RepLaLota and anyone who believes there is cannot be trusted to defend our rights in Congress. You should clarify and retract this pic.twitter.com/eCCpkIvcyQ
— Werther Marciales 🇺🇸 (@RobotDolphin3) December 24, 2023
The internet is forever @RepLaLota! pic.twitter.com/PTiDyPCu1Z
— ✝️Ahsoka Tano Nationalist🇺🇸 (@TXTanoStan99) December 23, 2023
Especially when we pick it up.
Where does it say that?
— Joshua Lisec, Ghostwriter (@JoshuaLisec) December 23, 2023
(It doesn't.) pic.twitter.com/eUXXKeIcY7
Seriously, where is the ramen guy when we need him?
The First Amendment protects your vile hate speech against it.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 23, 2023
Boomity.
First Amendment lawyer here. You are laughably wrong, and in saying "even a first year law student understands it" you smashed a whole carton of eggson your own face.
— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) December 23, 2023
You're a Congressman. Please educate yourself (lots of CLE might be needed) before spreading misinformation.
Oh please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don’t encourage our bar associations to require more Continuing Legal Education (CLE).
I'll agree to your "hate speech" restrictions as long as you let me define what is and isn't "hate speech"
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) December 23, 2023
Don't trust the bearded Spock. I have it on good authority that he is from an evil mirror universe.
This may be the worst, most embarrassing ratio I have ever seen @RepLaLota. Delete your account. pic.twitter.com/PwYJPKOQUF
— The Realest Realist (@ProGunMemes) December 23, 2023
We’ve seen worse.
@RepLaLota glad you deleted that whole “hate speech” exception to the 1st Amendment thing— must have been absent on Bill of Rights Day at law school, huh?
— Jack Burns (@burns_jack25926) December 24, 2023
In our required constitutional law course, it was not limited to a day. Indeed, the free expression clauses by themselves were not limited to one day.
Sorry, @RepLaLota but you are wrong.
— Thomas Roberts - Renegade Retro (@TheThundervamp9) December 24, 2023
Hate speech is also protected speech under the First Amendment. Any first-year law student understands this. Shouldn't an elected representative?
For the record, we are not sorry that he is wrong.
I have a law proposal.
— BackinBlack (@Good2Back) December 24, 2023
Congressmen that violate and advocate violating the constitution get 30 minimum in federal prison. :)
But would we still have a quorum in Congress under such a rule? And if we didn’t, and therefore Congress couldn’t do anything, would that be a bad thing?
Cope pic.twitter.com/aoBqdnqHBP
— The Glowing One ✞ (@The_Glowining) December 24, 2023
We included this one because it apparently included a picture of the final Community Note. We will assume it is an accurate screenshot but we have never seen the original for ourselves. When we saw his deleted post, no Community Note was shown.
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Community Note, but as you will see in a piece coming tomorrow on Cenk Uygur, Community Notes has a bad habit of citing non-legal sources for legal arguments. Citing the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) on the First Amendment generally won’t lead you too far astray, but if you want to talk law, you go to the law itself—not what any person has said about it. Tune in tomorrow for more on that topic.
And it is worth taking a moment to talk about why Rep. LaLota was trying to assert that this exception exists: Because of the problem of harassment of Jews on our nation’s campuses. Organizations like FIRE say that much of that harassment has to be allowed. FIRE is a genuinely principled organization that believes in a very robust understanding of freedom of expression and we agree that is the ideal. They have genuinely taken the crown of 'principled defenders of free expression' from the ACLU, mostly because the ACLU has abdicated.
But we can’t help but notice that for some time, there has been little free speech to be had on our nation’s campuses—whether they are government-run schools where the First Amendment applies or not. We taxpayers are being asked to subsidize—either directly through funding to the schools, or indirectly by federal loans and even student loan forgiveness—a set of institutions that not only violate the principle of freedom of expression, but do so in a biased way against conservative views. So, these schools claiming that they are just defending academic freedom? That dog won’t hunt. When institutions practice censorship as regularly as they do, when they tolerate a viewpoint, that is tantamount to endorsement.
And we admit that we have more than a little sympathy for the idea that maybe the best way to restore true freedom of expression on campuses is to give the left a huge helping of ‘their rules.’ We have tried to argue for years that the precedents they are setting are bad. Maybe they won’t see it, until those precedents are used against them. Then maybe our society can get back to recognizing that you have to tolerate the speech you don’t like, or your speech might be censored next.
We admit we are not sure that ‘their rules’ approach is the right one, but we are losing patience with only one side generally supporting freedom of expression.
...except, I really like that hate speech is protected so I know how people stand.
— Jason Vaughn (@selfevident1) December 24, 2023
This is actually a very good point. There are many ways restrictions on expression is bad, but one that gets overlooked is that we want idiots to self-identify, so we can steer clear of them. It’s like we often say in the controversy over whether a man who objects to gay marriage can be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. We always say, ‘you want to force a guy who hates you to make food for you? Sure, what can go wrong?’ And then we show them this clip from Super Troopers:
This issue is not entirely academic to this author, being in an interracial marriage. Before our wedding, if someone hated the idea of our marriage, we would want them to speak up so we could cut them out of the wedding and reception. We certainly wouldn’t want someone like that preparing something we eat. Who wants gastrointestinal issues on their wedding night?
That being said, we always urge people to chill out about their weddings. What we say about weddings is a bit like what they say about landing an airplane: Any wedding where you both walk away from it as husband and wife is a good one. In other words, lighten up, and if it isn’t perfect, but you still are happily married, it is still good. We know not everyone is going to live up to that ideal, but its something to keep in mind.
During the first class, I teach my Community college students that Hate Speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. @RepLaLota must have earned his law degree from Harvard.
— Jim Holderness (@jimhdel_jim) December 24, 2023
Harsh, but no lies detected.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member