In case you came in late, it was last Thursday when former presidential candidate Howard Dean chimed in on a tweet about Ann Coulter, asserting simply that hate speech does not enjoy First Amendment protections.
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 21, 2017
Four days later, we’ve lost track of how many times Dean has attempted (unsuccessfully) to shore up that stunning claim; as we reported earlier, it appeared that he had managed to quadruple-down over the weekend during an appearance on MSNBC.
There doesn’t appear to be any end in sight. The New York Times provided some much-needed backup Monday with an op-ed in defense of campus snowflakes, claiming that “freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute,” and that freedom of speech in 2017 means “balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.”
Even Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald couldn’t let that rhetorical tire fire stand without comment.
When I read the twisted irrationality 4 speech suppression in NYTimes today, I KNEW the writer would end up being a college administrator.
— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) April 24, 2017
Recommended
How can I be agreeing with Eichenwald?!
— Dennis Markham (@KeepsinItRealz) April 24, 2017
It’s a strange feeling, to be certain, but freedom of speech as defined in the First Amendment should not be this difficult to comprehend. And yet there was Howard Dean, still thrashing about.
Kurt is a a treasure but I disagree. Free speech is not absolute. More protection in US than anywhere else but SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled https://t.co/2Uwv9NM67V
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 24, 2017
Thanks 4 compliment! But I still disagree. If Sup Ct says something not protected speech, it isn't. But here, talking about offensive speech
— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) April 24, 2017
Yes, offensive speech should not be banned. But incitement to violence is not protected and that has been litigated multiple times. https://t.co/vJkgt8VylD
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 24, 2017
Yeah, we know … CHAPLINSKY! But what does any of this have to do with his initial tweet about “hate speech” not being protected?
A retreat to a defensible stance, worded to imply you were right before.
Don't compensate for good lawyers' smarts with bad ones' sleaze.
— Anthony Bennett (@AJBSaysThings) April 24, 2017
Stop debating this until you know facts.
— Linda (@lmcd9999_l) April 24, 2017
We’re pretty sure he knows the facts, but he’s been digging this hole for days now.
https://twitter.com/0toygunanthem0/status/856611885537296384
https://twitter.com/0toygunanthem0/status/856612032384307200
Mr Dean – Know how to tell when you're covered in dog doodoo? When it's day 3 & you're 80+ tweets into explaining. Lick your wounds already.
— Mark Thompson (@MarkThompson621) April 24, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member