On Sunday, The New York Times ran a front-page, 2,000-word report on how “conservatives weaponized the First Amendment.” Now, you might ask yourself why the most famous press institution in American history is questioning the wisdom of the First Amendment. You might also ask yourself how conservatives could have weaponized a freedom. This is sort of like saying that law-abiding citizens weaponized the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. But according to the Times’ Adam Liptak, conservatives have twisted the definition of free speech to enhance their own political goals.
Quoting execrable Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, Liptak explains that conservatives have been “weaponizing the First Amendment” through decisions that recognize the rights of non-union members, religious Americans, and people who want to spend money on elections
maybe the real complaint is conservatives STOLE the ‘weapons’ from the NYT cabal.
werks fer me . . . .
“Trump is Literally Hitler(tm), so we should repeal the first amendment and give the government all of our guns! I AM MAKING A GOOD DECISION!”
Seriously, you can’t even parody them anymore.
It was meant to be a weapon. To be used against any who would try to enslave us and our thoughts.
Working as designed.
Thank you James Madison. Have a happy 4th, bonfires and illuminations where appropriate and permitted.
Thank you James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who suggested the Bill of Rights to him. Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time, and did not see the Constitution until after it was rectified.
“It used to be that attempts to curtail the First Amendment largely sprang from the Right…”
Hogwash. The right patiently, and persistently, made the case that pornography and propaganda on behalf of enemies of the nation weren’t protected speech, and their suppression was not only legal but a duty of the state.
That the truth and the right to speak it were sacred was only ever disputed on the left, who were not above questioning the very existence of truth.
They are merely complaining that the right has weaponized truth. They may have a point. It has been said that the truth will set you free.
On Sunday, The New York Times……had no idea how small their audience is
Trumps owns the Dems…LOL
Its this same 1st Amendment that allows the New York Pravda to print all the lies it can 365 days a year in his liberal rag only good use is Birdcage Lining
IT’S GOT ELECTROLYTES!!!
The NYT is using leftist newspeak to suggest the First Amendment needs adjustment.
This fits right in with the radical movement to the left of the Democratic Party.
Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez told progressive radio host Bill Press Tuesday that Democratic-socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “the future of our party.”
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/03/dnc-chair-tom-perez-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-future-of-our-party/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180703
Democratic-socialist is another name for communist.
I am not sure how you twist free speech. Only a neo-Marxist could come up with such drivel and I respect his right to speak out his ass and write a pantload of pure shyte. And the NYToilet paper can print whatever they like as well and I’ll never read it.
“… press institution …”
Oh c’mon. How archaic a phrase that is. Best for Shapiro to use the modern contraction for clarity, of course: presstitutes.
You’re welcome.
The MSM isn’t very original. Trump accuses them of fake news, so they turn around and call less liberal outlets like Fox fake news.
Conservatives rightfully claim that Obama weaponized the IRS and FBI against them. So now the NYT uses the same terminology on the First Amendment. Except it doesn’t fit at all. The IRS and FBI are agencies with investigative powers that are supposed to be used against suspected criminals. When the sitting president directs them to use the powers against his political enemies, not only is it weaponizing the agencies, it is illegal and should be an impeachable offense. On the other hand, the First Amendment specifies certain inherent personal rights the federal government cannot make laws against them Specifically, on freedom of speech and the press, it says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Standing by itself, the statement defines all speech to be free. You cannot make that statement more absolute than it is. You can only make it less by claiming certain things are not covered by it. Therefore, you cannot “weaponize” the First Amendment. You can only attempt to “unweaponize” it by making it less than what it is, which is what the progs want to do now. They say hate speech should not be covered, and define hate speech as anything arguing against their position. If they get away with that, then effectively the First Amendment does not exist any more. They are so far gone that they want to ban classics like To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn, which are great exponents of what used to be considered liberal positions, simply because the books quote bad people using bad language against the protagonists. How else do you show they are bad people? The progs can’t even understand the books are defending the protagonists, not denigrating them. And these people want to define what is allowed?
Ben Shapiro’s next column:
‘How the left has weaponized protest’
‘How the left has weaponized edu-ma-cation’
‘How the left has weaponized dissent’
‘How the left has weaponized feminism’
‘How tge left has weaponized race’
‘How the left has weaponized Hollywood’
‘How the left has weaponized the tax system’
…