Free Speech Is Fundamental - Con Law Lesson #1.

Okay, boys and girls, this is what I learned on the first day of Constitutional Law in law school. It should be taught in high school. The Constitution is a "limiting" document. Unless a power is granted to the Government in the Constitution, it remains with the "people". Pretty clear. So, when a Government official or politician claims that Government should have the right to limit speech that is "disinformation", it doesn't have that power. Period. Disinformation is another way of saying "lying". In fact, in the United States, we are free to lie. The only time speech can be regulated is speech that incites violence. In Law School, the example used was yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Politicians lie all the time. Should we jail them all? Should we censor political speech? Of course not. If we do, we are no longer free. Regulating speech is no more acceptable now that the left wing is trying to do it than it was in the Fifties and Sixties when the right wing was trying to do it. We may be disgusted by someone's speech; but, we have no right to silence them. For instance, this current colloquy:

"RFK Jr: “Tim Walz has said that he doesn't think that the First Amendment protects misinformation or disinformation, that the government gets to decide what kind of speech is protected.” “Kamala Harris has said the same thing; that if you promote misinformation we're going to punish you, you've abused your privilege. In other words to her, the First Amendment is a privilege not a right.” “When we give government the power to be the arbiter of what speech is protected and which isn't, then that is the end of democracy.”

Mr. Kennedy is right. If you want a current political issue that dwarfs all the others, this is it. There is a reason it is the very first Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Comments

[rickgeorges]

Re-reading my post, it occurred to me that some might ask why, if free speech remains with the people unless restricted by the Constitution, why have a First Amendment at all? Fair question. But, even though free speech is already ours, the founding fathers, quite rightly, had just been through a monarchy, and really didn't trust anything the Government said. Can you blame them? So, adding the specific language in the First Amendment is more of a "and I really mean it" statement, and an attempt to remove all doubt.

[Jay Brinker]

Preach, Rick, keep preaching. Walz and those of his ilk are wrong, RFK is correct.