Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jack Jordan's avatar

In 2011 SCOTUS decided Snyder v. Phelps, and Chief Justice Roberts chose to author the majority opinion. In Snyder, SCOTUS justices emphasized the freedom of speech in America. More particularly, they emphasized the freedom to use even a particular backdrop and even to use particularly hateful messages about Americans who had been killed in the service of this nation. Picketers targeted funerals (and the friends and family) of servicemembers who had been killed in combat. SCOTUS reported that, according to one source, “nearly 600 funerals” had been “picketed.” So not only were hundreds of funerals and families picketed, but SCOTUS justices somewhat immortalized and significantly elevated what picketers said and did by protecting it by, first, granting the petition, and, second, writing a strong, detailed decision.

The signs that SCOTUS justices went out of their way to protect included, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs” (improvised bombs used to kill servicemembers), “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates You,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “You’re Going to Hell.”

Some of the principles in Snyder v. Phelps also were reiterated in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in 2023, which emphasized the following:

“The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”

“All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”

“The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”

Expand full comment
Meditative Mary's avatar

We all know that Trump has had an ongoing feud with Jimmy Kimmel and that he looks for any excuse to attack him. We also know that Carr, like all of Trump's mindless drones, trips over himself to do Trump's bidding, rather than think for himself. Still, I can't help but feel that the reason Carr's actions were so public, swift and bold was because of the obvious truth in Mr. Kimmel's statement. Truth and honesty, REAL transparency, this frightens Trump and causes him to act like an angry bully. Unfortunately, greed seems to be at work on both sides of the equation here. Does Nexstar need this merger so badly they are willing to sell us all out? Our First Amendment Rights are too important to give up...we must all fight this. Thank you for giving us a game plan to help us combat the attack. I HATE sitting idly by. (Bondi, for your edification, this is not 'hate speech'.)

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?