Chris Cuomo is firing back at critics of his earlier tweet where he said hate speech was prohibited by the Constitution, citing as evidence the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire which ruled that “fighting words” are not protected speech:
“@FilmLadd: Apparently @ChrisCuomo missed the "dumbass speech prohibition" in the Constitution, too.” Chaplinsky. Now shut up
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
“@HowieRubenstein: @ChrisCuomo Please cite a source for your claim” fighting words. Chaplinsky case. Since 1942
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
“@RBPundit: "Everyone is entitled to a unicorn. Don't just say you love the Constitution, read it." – @ChrisCuomo, basically.” Chaplinsky
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
.@JohnRiversToo google "chaplinsky" and read fighting words doctrine.
— Christopher C. Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
But he’s still wrong:
Also, of course, @ChrisCuomo completely overlooks the face-to-face requirement as he alleges that fighting words doctrine somehow applies.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 6, 2015
https://twitter.com/kept_simple/status/595958852140572674
.@ChrisCuomo @FiveRights Chaplinsky would have easily won his case today. See Snyder v Phelps (2011).
— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) May 6, 2015
https://twitter.com/Stefan_BC/status/595958660792131584
Despite what @ChrisCuomo says, "hate speech" appears nowhere in Chaplinsky.
— Fred Bauer (@fredbauerblog) May 6, 2015
Can't believe Cuomo is using Chaplinsky as is defense.
Really..did this guy ever study 'Fighting words'? Do they not teach this at Fordham?
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 6, 2015
Cuomo's brilliant retort is to cite Chaplinsky, which was 73 years ago and there's newer case law with far more latitude (WBC, for instance)
— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) May 6, 2015
Recommended
I think Cuomo is guilty of being unclear more than anything here. Conflating hate speech w/Chaplinsky is wrong. https://t.co/0lpsrNaFMs
— The Meturgeman (@DraftRyan2016) May 6, 2015
@benshapiro If @ChrisCuomo is seriously suggesting that Chaplinsky is relevant to Mohammed cartoons, his folks wasted their $ on law school
— Aaron Henager (@AaronHenager1) May 6, 2015
.@ChrisCuomo First off, Chaplinsky is not in the Constitution. Second, cartoons of Mohammed are not "fighting words" under any definition.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) May 6, 2015
And you will still be entirely wrong. RT @ChrisCuomo @EdMorrissey I will keep saying one word: chaplinsky
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 6, 2015
@ChrisCuomo @BenK84 Also, the exhibit in Garland would not constitute "fighting words" even under Chaplinsky
— Doug Mataconis (@dmataconis) May 6, 2015
Cuomo, however, is still fighting back. Just stop digging!
***
Related:
‘Painfully dumb tweet!’: ‘Smug’ Chris Cuomo gets schooled on hate speech and the Constitution
Join the conversation as a VIP Member