Posts
What Daniel said in answer to that question gave credence to the notion that the "R" in "R-Knoxville" stands for something other than "Republican." It would be politically incorrect for me to say what I believe it represents.
"Yes," (the mentally challenged) Daniels replied. "So long as it doesn't disrupt the proceedings on that campus. Yes sir. They can recruit people for any other organization or any other cause. I think it's just part of being exposed to differing viewpoints."
When taking an unwavering, suicidal stand based upon a principal that would eventually destroy your right to invoke that principal, you are either an idiot or a jihadist, or both.
Daniel's bill was intended to challenge free speech restrictions being enforced on campuses across America. Its intentions were good--they are meant to uphold our First Amendment rights, I get that.
But with our rights must come exceptions that make sense.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of "Incitement" and held that "advocacy of the use of force" is not protected when "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to produce such action."
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words." That is, speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking violence.
Threats of violence directed at an individual or group (such as Jewish students, in this case) would be unprotected. An exception would be if the threats are seen as hyperbole, but based on the history of ISIS, a threat of violence would not constitute hyperbole--it's how they roll.
So Rep. Daniel's bill, for all its good intentions, does not legally protect the speech of an organization such as ISIS.
And Rep. Daniel is most likely an idiot.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment