'Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,' Portland mayor says. He's wrong.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

It's not that hard.

‘Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,’ Portland mayor says. He’s wrong.

By Kristine Phillips May 30 at 2:17 PM

As his city mourns two men who were killed after confronting a man screaming anti-Muslim slurs, Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) is calling on federal officials to block what he called “alt-right demonstrations” from happening in downtown Portland, Ore.

His concern is that the two rallies, both scheduled in June, will escalate an already volatile situation in Portland by peddling “a message of hatred and of bigotry.” Although the organizers of the rallies have a constitutional right to speak, “hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” Wheeler told reporters.

But history and precedent are not on Wheeler's side. ... The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech.

The high court did so in 1969, when it found that a state law banning public speech that advocates for illegal activities violated the constitutional rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader. ... It did so again in 1992, when the justices unanimously found that hateful acts such as burning a cross on a black family's lawn are protected by the First Amendment. ... And again in 2011, when the court ruled in favor of church members who picketed and carried signs with homophobic slurs at a soldier's funeral.

{Portland mayor asks feds to bar free-speech and anti-sharia rallies after stabbings}
....

Kristine Phillips is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. Contact her at [e-mail]. Follow @kristinegWP

[yodermon]

1. If he had qualified it to say "hate speech that incites violence"

maybe he'd have an argument.

[Warpy]

2. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until one of these pep rallies for the hateful

spills out onto the street in the form of a mob, hurting people and destroying property, before mayors are able to deny permits for this bullshit. Until then, hate speech is protected political speech. Private entities can forbid it but the government can't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Won't happen- See Skokie vs Illinois Nazis:

Last edited Fri Jun 2, 2017, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly. The outcome was that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words". Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.[1]

Aside from that, did you not consider what might happen if right-wingers got hold of a municipality
somewhere and decided to use your criteria? Expression of any views to the left of John McCain's
would become "hate speech".

This is a slope we'd best not head down...

[Warpy]

4. Skiokie was different

because even though there had been altercations between Nazis and their counter demonstrators, it hadn't degenerated into a mob. There was no precedent that would have allowed them to be shut down. I stood up for their rights, the rights of Klanners to parade, and I've stood for the rights of the last few dusty Communists to hold one of their protests. Politics isn't the issue here

There's a difference between political protest and starting a riot. Dolt45's pep rallies are on that knife edge. Once a city is smashed, looted and blackened with burning cars in the street and the hospital full of injured bystanders, Dolt45 will find himself having to pay a very large bond to hold a pep rally for haters, large enough to prevent many of them. And that will start to shut them down.

Get it? The criterion isn't political, it's yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, and "might lead to a few fistfights" is not adequate.