U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said certain types of controversial speech are not protected by First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Cardin also said during a Senate hearing in December that he wants more European-style solutions – and potentially speech restrictions on social media.
“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,” Cardin said. “You know that Europe has done things and think we have to learn from each other.” European countries do not have blanket protections for freedom of speech and dissent outlined in the U.S. constitutions. That has allowed to European governments to restrict and sanctions some anti-government speech and groups outside of political, religious and social establishments.
The Maryland Democrat’s comments sparked renewed concerns from conservatives and free speech advocates about crackdowns on dissent and anti-government sentiments on social media and other forums.
“Our first amendment is one of the defining jewels of this country,” Cardin said. “It is NOT a free pass to spew violent rhetoric.” Cardin clarified his comments Dec. 29 saying “hateful speech” is protected under the First Amendment but doubled down on potential government restrictions online is if that speech incites violence, criminal activities or infringes on others’ rights.
“Although the First Amendment protects even hateful speech, if that speech motivates someone to commit a crime, engage in violence, or take action that infringes on someone else’s right, that speech is not protected under the First Amendment and there must be accountability,” Cardin said in a letter to Maryland constituents.
Cardin, who has served in Congress since 1987 and the Senate since 2007, also cites increases in reported anti-Semitic crimes and incidents. He also said during the hearing that there is room for crackdowns on hate speech from both the government and private sector.
The comments come as Twitter owner Elon Musk released information about the social media platforms restrictions on and banning of dissenting voices disputing the 2020 presidential election results as well as critics of COVID vaccines and pandemic-related vaccine mandates.
Some of Musk’s “Twitter files” show communications and coordination between Democratic partisans and elected officials as well as the FBI with Twitter executives in charge of potential bans and blocking posts.
There are also pushes in progressive states to restrict anti-abortion protesters and crisis pregnancy centers set up by anti-abortion advocates.
Those efforts will also face free speech questions and potential challenges. The Biden administration and FBI also continue to focus investigative resources on anti-government right-wing groups as well as those disputing the 2020 presidential election.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a Philadelphia-based conservative group focused on civil liberties on campuses, contends the government is curtailed even in its bids to corral dissident speech including when it is accused of inciting violence.
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court of the United States held the First Amendment does not protect speech that is ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’ Mere advocacy of lawbreaking or violence remains protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action.,” the FIRE group said in an analysis.
© Copyright © 2023 Star Democrat, Chesapeake Publishing Group (Adams Publishing/APGMedia). All rights reserved.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said certain types of controversial speech are not protected by First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you’re not protected under the First Amendment
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It does NOT say “freedom of speech” except that which a government politician deems unacceptable.
At what point is the Democrat Party allowed to restrict their opponents of their freedom of free speech in their opposition to the Democrat Party agendas as they did on facebook and twitter? The FBI forced both twitter and facebook from allowing them to post articles about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 elections. The FBI labeled parents domestic terrorists when they voiced their objections to the public schools force teaching the “Critical Race Theory”.
AND since they are the gate keepers of ‘what is hate/what is violence/what is extremism’, WHY SHOULD ANY OF US TRUST THEM, to monitor this?
Cardin -“If you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you’re not protected under the First Amendment.”,,,,,,so if you hate evil you have to keep your trap shut, and if attacked you cannot espouse let alone defend yourself violently, even if it saves you own life. Let this fool keep his trap shut when the wolf comes for him and find out too late the value of speaking the ugly truth, even if it melts a few snowflakes like Cardin. His reality check may just prove a life ending experience when he meets the more evil sides of the Democrat crime families who would not hestitate to make people dissappear if they say or do anything that gets in their way. Ask Jeffrey Epstein how that worked out for him who instead of speaking the truth using his 1st ammendment right to speak freely, just ended up in the ground like a fertilizer soil ammendment that feeds the Washington worms, which should have been the new assigned name for the Redskins instead of the commanders, which democrat politicians all envision themselves to be.
The Democrats, left, woke, liberal, whatever, have real difficulty in defining what speech espouses hate and what violnce is. Hate speech seems to any opinion that the liberals disagree with once THEY have made up their minds what their ‘truth’ is! As for violence, we have witnessed since 2020 the burings and looting of cities that the liberal media described merely as protests though the property damage was great, people were hurt and some ended up dead! Then there was the mob that swarmed through the Capitol and did relativley minor damage compared to 2020 and it was labeled an insurrection, though nobody was ever charged with that crime. By the senator’s definition Joe Biden’s diatribes against conservatives and his MAGA Republicans fit nicely into the category he wants to restrict!
Add to that, all the attacks ON conservatives by leftists, seen as “peacefully protesting”, but any conservative even just SPEAKING OUT against lefitsts, gets labeled an extremist attempting to incite violence..
Lying while in office should be a capital offense, not free speech.
It definitely deserves at least, a few days in the stocks..
Cardin cites the absence of free speech in Europe as a model for ending it in the US using the connection of speech with violence. as his rationale. However, in Europe speech connected with violence is only suppressed at the pleasure of the governments. Actual violent segments of the public have carte blanche to threaten while others have to walk on eggshells.
Especially Mudslime preachers..
Our ancestors liked “European-style solutions” (think monarchy and dictatorship) so much that they split for the New World!
I have a great idea.. Send him TO THE European union, permanently!
Cardin also said during a Senate hearing in December that he wants more European-style solutions
If you want this , Time to move to Europe and do it ASAP. We Patriots no longer need nor want your stupidity.