A Concise, Clear, Elegant, And Willfully False Unethical Tweet Of The Month From Howard Dean

Howard Dean wants to make sure the Left’s war on free speech and expression continues, so he decided to misinform trusting Democrats and progressives—who trust the damnedest people lately!—with a Big Lie level tweet. His immediate target was Ann Coulter, whose speaking gig at Berkeley was first cancelled because of the campus’s rampant embrace of “the heckler’s veto” (as well as the “the thug’s veto,” “the bully’s veto,” and”the rioter’s veto,” all increasingly au currant on the Left) by the school’s students, then cleverly re-scheduled by the University to a day when there would be no classes. [Full disclosure: I wouldn’t move from my living room into my dining room to hear Ann Coulter speak.] Dean is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, arguably the worst of a terrible lot, and is an expert on “hate speech”, or at least hateful speech, having engaged in it himself often. Notably, for example, he insinuated that President Trump was a cocaine user during the 2016 campaign because a badly set microphone picked up his sniffling during a debate.

The nice thing about the progressive definition of “hate speech” (it has no legal definition, which is also convenient) is that it only includes statements that progressives disagree with or find disruptive to their world view and fondly held beliefs. Hateful speech from Democrats is just the hard truth, so it isn’t “hate speech.” Hate speech from everyone else is unprotected, and should carry criminal penalties.

There is no question that Dean knows “hate speech,” whatever it is, is protected by the First Amendment, but it suits his purpose and his party’s to imbed the lie that it isn’t in the mushy brains of the easily confused. This will greatly assist the Left’s ongoing efforts to stifle debate and make any dissent with progressive cant as difficult as possible. That’s the plan.

And again: progressives and Democrats should be as offended by this kind of dishonesty by their leaders as I am. Why aren’t they? Do they think Dean is correct? Do they think he should be correct? Or is it just that they believe that the ends justify the means? Democrats? Progressives? Hello? Integrity? Honesty? The Constitution? Bueller?

What the hell is the matter with them?

Constitutional law expert and law professor Eugene Volokh mostly controls his exasperation as he tries to set Dean and his uneducated acolytes straight. He begins a thorough dismembering of Dean’s tweeted lie in the Washington Post thusly:

“There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans. As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the First Amendment’s tradition of “protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’ ” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” viewpoints.”

I admit it: I would have added “you irresponsible, shameless fool!”

The professor concludes his definitive slam-dunk of the former Democratic Presidential candidate…

“Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech…But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t rely just on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already “not protected by the first amendment,” as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.”

You irresponsible, shameless fool…

29 thoughts on “A Concise, Clear, Elegant, And Willfully False Unethical Tweet Of The Month From Howard Dean

  1. Dean’s remarks are unsurprising and at this point unremarkable for a man of the left. It seems left leaning politicians across the western world are more interested in criminalizing political discourse than engaging in it: If you can’t win a debate just ban debate. I don’t care for Trump but at least (I hope) we will have a 4 year reprieve from this Democrat descent into totalitarianism. Any doubts the Dems would be trying to set up Obama’s “curating function” for information had they won? Terrifying.

  2. It was interesting to me to find out from friends in various European countries that “hate speech” (racist speech) is already not protected free speech in some places there.

    Of course, it’s not doing a darn thing except shoving down racial tension until it reaches a boiling point. That’s how Europe has usually operated, and they’ve had four genocides in the past hundred years.

    I once put it (to the agreement of my European friends): Racism in America is like a man who gets drunk and slaps around his wife. Racism in Europe is like a man who seems like a perfect husband and buries the body in the back yard.

      • When I was but a lad of 20 I predicted that racism and white supremacism were going to make an ugly comeback in both Eastern and Western Europe (because of their move towards both post-Christianity with statism) but at the time I couldn’t even have imagined how badly the governments there would fan the flames. “Let’s bus in millions of immigrants from places that hate everything about us, and also make it illegal to say anything bad about them. That should go well.”

  3. It amazes me that fools like Howard Dean want to ban “hate speech” to pander to his constituents. Conservative groups seem to be the main target as well as over the top celebrity speakers like Ann Coulter. Maybe Dean should propose a Gulag to be created in America to deal harshly with those that engage in “hate speech”.

  4. “…progressives and Democrats should be as offended by this kind of dishonesty by their leaders as I am. Why aren’t they?”

    Some of us are.

    • Unfortunately, Charles, you are not typical. Thanks for reaffirming what I assumed.

      Aside: I just watched 1776 again, and you reminded me just now of the moment after John Adams’ lament “Does anybody care?” when he is interrupted by Georgia’s Dr. Lyman Hall, who had been voting against independence, who says, “I do. I care, Mr, Adams.”

      • I must echo Charles. While I have seen some extreme liberals cheer Dean on here, I’ve mostly seen mockery.

        I used to think Dean was harmless and was unfairly embarrassed for “the scream…” but now I realize he is truly an embarrassing individual.

          • Agree that probably Dean has no shame.

            However, the “scream” incident is one of those anomalies in cultural history: it has as much truth as the “hands up don’t shoot” meme on the left.

            He was in a loud room, screaming to be heard; the microphone was set on an omnidirectional mode, and any sound that was picked up isolated his voice from the crowd’s sound. It’s the equivalent of that sit-com staple of someone talking loudly when suddenly everyone else stops talking and the victim blithely utters something stupid.

            There are plenty of valid critiques of Dean to be made without relying on the false narrative of the “scream” story.

            • Agreed, and thanks for noting this. I wrote about it at the time. Dean was unfairly mocked for the scream, and it had nothing to do with the collapse of his campaign.

              Maybe that’s what has made him so nasty and bitter now…

              • You are right. He was way ahead in the polls at one point but he was already losing steam and the scream happened at a rally where he had just lost one of the primaries he was supposed to win.

  5. Howard Dean was never known for being tolerant of opposing viewpoints, nor for being a bridge-builder who advocated working with the other side. The fact that, at a town hall meeting, he told a senior citizen who disagreed with him to sit down and put a sock in it should tell you his view on tolerance. His statement that the opposition party’s only job was to oppose the majority, not offer any initiatives of its own, should tell you all you need to know about his view on working with other parties. The man is a vicious thug, plain and simple, who would gladly throw those who disagreed with him into jail or ship them off to reeducation camps if he could. Unfortunately, he is becoming par for the course in the modern Democratic Party. The only difference is whether the tyranny is delivered with a sneer (Obama) a bald-faced lie (Hillary) or a bullying yell (Dean).

  6. Jack, you wrote, ” Democrats? Progressives? Hello? Integrity? Honesty? The Constitution? Bueller?”
    In the movie, mr. Rooney (played by Jeffrey Jones) calls several times, like a broken record, for Bueller. It’s funny and you using it rekindled that positive feeling. However, by using it, you places youself in the position of mr. Rooney, a headmaster who looses in every confrontation with Bueller and even looses from Bueller’s sister and even worse, from Bueller’s dog. In other words, he is a big time looser. That’s not the position one wants to be associated with, I think.

  7. Anyone is welcome to appropriate bits of my spiel about “hate speech” if you run into anyone who presses you on it.


    EC: “Barren [sic] Blauschwartz, would you like to engage in some hate speech towards this human?”

    BB: “Why yes, I would. Thank you, Extradimensional Cephalopod. Ahem.”

    BB: [Turns toward human.]

    BB: “I hate you because your words and actions show that you are emotionally and intellectually weak and you wish to cripple the emotional and intellectual capacity of the world around you because you can’t deal with it and feel threatened. Go hide in your room, you pathetic axolotl. The rest of us have grown-up things to do. There, that was hate speech. I said that I hated you. Now what are you going to do about it? Going to cry to an authority figure for protection from my scary, nasty words and ideas?”

    EC: “Look, I know that you think that making ideas illegal will prevent people from spreading them, but that’s because you haven’t given it any serious thought. It’s not going to prevent people from thinking ill of you. It’s not going to prevent them from spreading their ideas. It’s only going to make them resent you more, and it’s going to vindicate them in their own eyes, because you couldn’t prove them wrong—you could only shut them up. Logically, only bad people need rules to prevent others speaking ill of them. Everyone else can just show that they’re not bad. Yes, I know that sounds like, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” but in this case it’s you trying to silence people, instead of others trying to invade your privacy. You’re the one crossing the boundary, here. Come on, if censorship didn’t work for Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter to control what students could read and think, what makes you think it would work for you?”

    BB: “They say you can’t change how others think of you, so maybe that’s why you’re trying to make it illegal for people to spread the idea that you’re not to be respected. But I’m based on the idea that if you don’t want a thought in someone’s head, you need to learn how to take it out yourself. If you learn to understand those who hate you, and to show them that you understand, you can change their minds. It also helps if you give people the benefit of the doubt. There’s a lot of people who didn’t hate you until you told them they did.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.