In a follow up to her tweet last night, failing presidential candidate Kamala Harris posted a letter she sent to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey asking him to suspend President Donald Trump:
Senator Kamala Harris has written to Twitter CEO @jack calling on him to suspend President Trump’s Twitter account
689 people are talking about this
And if that’s not bad enough, here’s her national press secretary declaring open war against the First Amendment:
This was the exact talking point @FoxNews personalities were promulgating on air all day yesterday. twitter.com/julesjester/st…
216 people are talking about this
So Tulsi Gabbard defends free speech and that’s a problem to Team Harris?
We’ve reached the “free speech is a right wing talking point” stage of the silliness. twitter.com/iansams/status…
See RBe's other Tweets
Kamala’s press secretary accusess Tulsi of using a Fox talking point.
Her comment was simply that free speech is important twitter.com/iansams/status…
18 people are talking about this
This clown is even fighting with libs over it:
Why? The president is flagrantly violating the terms of service on abusive behavior. And to what end? Threatening a whistleblower, the Congressman leading impeachment inquiry, WH staff who cooperated with the whistleblower, and raising specter of civil war. This shit is serious.
61 people are talking about this
If Donald Trump walked into a crowded theater and yelled “FIRE,” media pearl clutchers would object to stopping him because it could give them less news. twitter.com/iansams/status…
50 people are talking about this
Using the “fire in a crowded theater” line in this context should be disqualfying. From The Atlantic in 2012, “It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote“:
Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act. It would become the first in a long string of dissents Holmes and fellow Justice Louis Brandies would write in defense of free speech that collectively laid the groundwork for Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s that shaped the First Amendment jurisprudence of today.In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”
It’s time for Kamala Harris to drop out.
No comments:
Post a Comment