| “
|
What
does this have to do with the First Amendment?
President
Barack Obama says he would "think about changing" the Washington
Redskins' name if
The
most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...]
The question in every
case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are
of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr..; Schenck
v. United States1919
he owned the football team as he waded into the
controversy involving a word many consider offensive to Native
Americans.
Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such
as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while
fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough
reason to keep them in place.
I
occasionally make an effort, especially after Sunday Mass, to love my
enemies, but when it comes to Clownbama I'd have to
masquerade as
the village idiot. I really do see Obama as a psycho who
HAS
invaded my home, and at gun-point forced us to hand over our
titles of deed and wealth—and then— for good measure, raped my
wife and children (3 boys
and a girl all), and on the way out reminded us- "I won the election."
So,
you see, it's impossible; but I do what I
can. In
this Redskins
case, I have just two words. First Amendment.
I do not agree with what you have to
say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire
The United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919,
seems to be the genesis for what have become outrages against
First Amendment, like "Hate Speech" laws. I would argue
that the court was wrong in 1919, because it
involved the distribution of flyers opposing the draft
during World War I. Clear and
Present Danger? I don't think so; I
see free speech. Plus, note that Holmes expressed the caveat "falsely" shouting
fire in a theater ... .
Anyway, Liberals have latched onto that
"Fire in the Theater" euphemism to enact "Hate Speech decided
by whom?" laws.
The dangers are obvious, and
inherent. At the heart of the professional anti-Redsikin rabble's
argument is a suggestion that calling a team The Redskins
is as
offensive as calling them The Niggers. I hardly see the social
parallel, but
that's no never mind.
I have a First Amendment right to call
anybody, anything, that does not infer libel or slander, whether
it upsets you or not. Voltaire's "..I'll defend your right to say it
... " was ubiquitously taught when I was schooled, but
now? If enough people feel the same way about The Redskins
as do the savage left, they can call them
the Reds, or any g'damn thing
they like. But ban Redskins legally? What Voltaire said.
Sheesh!
STFU Barry.
|
|
” |
