Dem Senator Claims “Hate” is Not Protected by First Amendment, Later Admits He’s Wrong

RSS Feed

Dem Senator Claims “Hate” is Not Protected by First Amendment, Later Admits He’s Wrong

December 30th, 2022

Awake Goy

Democratic Senator Ben Cardin suggested that “hate” is “not protected under the First Amendment” during a hearing, but later had to clarify that he was wrong.

The Maryland lawmaker made the comments while speaking with US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Deborah Lipstadt and American Jewish Committee Director of International Jewish Affairs Rabbi Andrew Baker.

“If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you’re not protected under the First Amendment,” Cardin falsely claimed.

“I think we can be more aggressive in the way that we handle that type of use of the internet,” he added, suggesting such content should be censored by Big Tech and the state.

.@SenatorCardin: "If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you're not protected under the First Amendment. I think we can be more aggressive in the way that we handle that type of use of the internet." pic.twitter.com/t38Myy93ZI

— The Hill (@thehill) December 29, 2022

It goes without saying that the term “hate” is completely arbitrary and has been weaponized by the left to chill scrutiny of everything from children being exposed to drag queens to legitimate criticism of public figures.

That’s why “hate” and even “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment.

Cardin was subsequently forced to correct himself on Twitter, writing, “Hate speech is protected under the #FirstAmendment, unless it incites violence.”

For those interested, here is a longer version of the video referencing hate speech from our recent hearing.

Hate speech is protected under the #FirstAmendment, unless it incites violence. #context pic.twitter.com/A0J1sNzYUH

— Senator Ben Cardin (@SenatorCardin) December 29, 2022

The lawmaker also published a longer statement on his website clarifying that, “the First Amendment protects even hateful speech,” while also claiming that speech that “infringes on someone else’s right” is not protected, a dubious claim given that “infringes on someone else’s right” is also a nebulous definition.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, although Democrats are constantly lobbying to change that so they can silence their ideological adversaries.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/