It happens to every lawyer: you find yourself in an argument with an Honours graduate of the Facebook College of Law – sometimes your own client, sometimes a self-represented litigant – who clings to an incorrect legal argument because he saw it on TV or on Twitter or something. No matter what you tell him, it’s a lost cause – he just will not be moved, no matter how clearly you try to inform him otherwise. (As Ed Koch allegedly said, “I can explain this to you. I can’t understand it for you.”)
Why, hello there, failed 2004 Presidential candidate Howard Dean. We were just talking about you:
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 21, 2017
For WAPO and others raising issues about hate speech not being constitutionally protected, read “Chaplinsky v New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 22, 2017
Why don’t you read the 1942 Chaplinsky decision from Scotus. https://t.co/1nGuRlrAOQ
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 22, 2017
This is NOT protected speech under the first amendment. Check Chaplinsky V New Hampshire SCOTUS 1942. https://t.co/wr3rMaRnAB
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 23, 2017
This does not mean she can be prosecuted for saying this but I argue this kind of stuff is grounds for barring her from a University campus https://t.co/7TkRFTHBp2
— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 24, 2017
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
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
If Dean was saying the First Amendment shouldn’t protect “hate speech,” or that freedom of expression isn’t so uncompromised in most other countries (including Canada) that would be one thing.
But that’s not what he’s doing. Regardless of what American lawyers and American courts actually say, he’s insisting that his interpretation of the First Amendment is correct, and he won’t hear otherwise.
The way he’s clinging to this reminds me of former London mayor Ken Livingstone’s insistence on taking every opportunity to argue that Hitler was a Zionist. But, hey, at least the blinkered Dean never became President. Can you imagine if the most powerful man on earth were an ignoramus who absolutely refused to ever admit his mistakes or listen to people who actually know what they’re doing?
The mind boggles.
Damian J. Penny 