FREE SPEECH TEST

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]What does the First Amendment say or what are its limits when it comes to this really dastardly and nasty and negative and grave and evil speech, whether it's politicians or some whack job podcaster and so forth. And we we say this in the context of the third attempt to assassinate our president.

[00:00:21]And I'm convinced that a lot of the language that's being used by the Democrats, their media, and some of these disgusting podcasters is contributing mightily to this.

[00:00:33]And I really believe that quite strongly.

[00:00:36]Um in all the years I've been involved in media and politics, I don't remember anything like this. And uh and it's not tamping down. You know, the Democrats will say, "We really need you tonight. Don't you hate those bastards over there?" You know, and that'll that'll last about 4 minutes.

[00:00:53]They'll all do their conga line on The View, on CNN, on MSNBC now.

[00:00:59]MSNBC, whatever. And you know what I'm talking about. The New York Times out there doing puff pieces.

[00:01:06]And probably the most vile of the bunch, certainly one of them, this Hasan that most of you never heard of. I call him Hasan Puker, but that's a whole 'nother story.

[00:01:15]So, what are the limits?

[00:01:18]What are the limits under our Constitution?

[00:01:21]Well, yesterday I talked to you briefly about this case, Brandenburg versus Ohio in 1969. Remember?

[00:01:28]And they threw out this test, clear and present danger.

[00:01:32]And it was a unanimous decision. It wasn't even signed, which means they just all went along. It was only four pages long.

[00:01:39]Have you ever heard anything like that?

[00:01:41]Very rarely.

[00:01:42]There were two concurring opinions, too, by Hugo Black and Justice Douglas.

[00:01:48]Uh they would be when it comes to um the left-wing agenda and so forth, Douglas was uh was really way out there.

[00:01:57]Hugo Black, interesting background. If you read my book on the on the Supreme Court, Men in Black, you'll know that he came to the court from the Senate.

[00:02:07]He was Roosevelt's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Franklin Roosevelt's.

[00:02:12]Came out of Alabama.

[00:02:14]And for 2 years he was the lawyer for the Alabama Klan.

[00:02:20]And he hated Catholics.

[00:02:22]Not a big fan of Jews, but he really hated Catholics.

[00:02:26]His son said his father hated Catholics.

[00:02:29]And uh but he was a purist when it came to the First Amendment. I know there's some weird things going on here, but nonetheless, he was a purist when it came to the First Amendment.

[00:02:38]And so, in his concurring opinion, he said, "Look, let's just state it bluntly, we're throwing out the clear and present danger test. It's too ambiguous."

[00:02:46]And Douglas, who wrote a concurrence, said, "Yeah, me too. I agree with that."

[00:02:51]And so, the clear and present danger test was thrown out. And in 1969, even broader protection was given to offensive speech, partic- even possibly inciteful speech as far as I'm concerned. And um so, between the Sullivan case and this, the press really was immune in so many respects.

[00:03:14]And then we talked about yesterday the fact that members of Congress uh have the immunity clause of the Constitution to protect them as long as what they're doing is within the broad range of their duties as a member of the House or Senate.

[00:03:27]And then we talked about, well, what about private citizens?

[00:03:31]Well, what about private citizens?

[00:03:34]What's the test?

[00:03:36]For a podcaster, for a TV host, for a radio host, somebody with a bullhorn, or just somebody without a bullhorn just screaming at the top of their lungs. What is the test?

[00:03:50]Supreme Court is very well, almost terse about it. Doesn't give it a lot of attention, but it's four pages and they have the power to do whatever they want to do, which is exactly what the Democrats want to add four seats, turn it into a 13-lawyer Politburo, which will do what the Democrat Party demands. So, no matter what they do, you take it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will rubber-stamp it.

[00:04:16]How do you like that? Is that separation of powers? Hardly.

[00:04:20]So, the court said this.

[00:04:23]They talked about the latter decisions of the Supreme Court, that they were moving away from the clear and present danger, but there wasn't really a test.

[00:04:30]So, they said, "These latter decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violations.

[00:04:49]So, if you have somebody advocating, 'Use force against XYZ,' or they even propose violating the law, except where such an advocacy is, here's the kicker, inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." So, there's our word imminent again, you know, they talk about attacking Iran. Well, was the threat imminent? That's different. There's no legal requirement um and you're allowed, of course, provide a preventive a fight a preventive war.

[00:05:25]Like, I don't know if it's imminent or not, but we're going to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, whether it's tomorrow, 3 seconds from now, or 3 months from now.

[00:05:33]That's perfectly constitutional. So, stop throwing around that word imminent.

[00:05:36]Here, when it comes to speech, that word is key cuz it's a very high test.

[00:05:44]What they're saying is, is it an imminent does it produce an imminent lawless action likely to incite or produce such action? So, be talking to a group of people, "There's Frank. GO GET HIM AND HANG HIM FROM a tree." Clearly, that's incitement.

[00:06:01]>> [snorts] >> Folks, if you enjoyed this clip, you can go to YouTube and subscribe, or go to Rumble and follow. And by the way, tell your friends and family, too. I'll see you then.