Senate Minority Leader Schumer Calls for Killing First Amendment Protection of Political Speech


Crushing free speech is essential to leftists’ agenda of statism, and always has been. The National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis), the Communists, Stalinists, et al destroy freedom by first restricting free speech. The First Amendment is first for a reason. It is our most precious and most protected freedom. And political speech is the most protected speech.

This has long been the ultimate goal of the Democrats, the leftists – silencing dissent. Totalitarianism. It’s why they are such enthusiastic supporters of the sharia where death is the punishment for dissenters (of Islam).

But they systematically use their free speech to defame, demonize and destroy good people.

Under the first amendment, political speech is the most protected speech and it is that very speech the Democrats which to silence.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. They blame truth and sites like the Geller Report for their crushing election defeat in November. So they mean to shut us down. Not once did they consider that the election was the result of their catastrophic failures. The Democrats are anti-freedom, anti-America, anti-individualism.

The left cannot win in the war of ideas, so they must silence the opposition. Crush freedom.

Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.

If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.

Inoffensive speech needs no protection. The First Amendment was developed precisely in order to protect speech that was offensive to some, in order to prevent those who had power from claiming they were offended by speech opposing them and silencing the powerless.

A free society is by its nature one in which people exchange ideas and opinions. The alternative is a quiet authoritarian society in which only one opinion is allowed and the others are silenced, and ultimately sent to the camps.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow me on Gettr. I am there, click here. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Schumer Calls for Amending First Amendment to Limit Political Speech

By Terry Jeffrey, Town Hall, Aug 01, 2019:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., has determined there is too much political speech in the United States coming from sources he cannot tolerate. So, he stood in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, along with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., to announce he is backing Democratic New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall’s proposal to amend the First Amendment.

The First Amendment — as it now stands — includes 10 unambiguous words about freedom of speech.

“Congress,” it says, “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

Schumer and Udall do not like this sweeping restraint on government power. There are speakers whose speech they want to abridge. The Bill of Rights — as correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court — stands in their way. So, they are seeking to change it.

Specifically, in 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission that Americans enjoy the freedom of speech not only when they act as individuals but also when they form corporations.

In other words, a movie-making company has the same right to free speech as its owners individually do.

The same can be said for a book publishing company — or a company that manufactures lawnmowers or fishing rods.

In the United States, they all enjoy a freedom of speech that Congress “shall make no law” that abridges it.

For Schumer, this principle, which the court upheld in Citizens United, is gravely wrong.

“Few decisions in the 200 and some odd years of this republic have threatened our democracy like Citizens United,” Schumer said on Tuesday

“If I get to be majority leader with the help of my colleagues here and all of you, Citizens United will go. It must,” he said.

“Overturning Citizens United,” Schumer said, “is probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.”

It was not Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito or even John Roberts who wrote the court’s opinion in Citizens United. It was Anthony Kennedy.

“The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations,” Kennedy wrote.

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” he said.

The court also concluded it was ridiculous for the government — as federal campaign-finance law then did — to try to distinguish between a “media” corporation and other types of corporations in order to exempt “media” corporations from restrictions the government sought to impose on the freedom of speech of non-media corporations.

“The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news,” said the court. “So even assuming the most doubtful proposition that a news organization has a right to speak when others do not, the exemption would allow a conglomerate that owns both a media business and an unrelated business to influence or control the media in order to advance its overall business interest. At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the public about the same issue.”

“This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” said the court.

“The purpose and effect of this law,” the court said, “is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public.”

“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Their Democracy for All Amendment, as they call it, deploys 106 words to amend the 10 words in the First Amendment that protect freedom of speech.

The final 22 words of their proposed amendment assure corporations that own news outlets that Schumer and Udall are not coming for them. They say: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”

There is no similar language to clarify that the amendment does not give Congress or the states the power to abridge “freedom of speech” for entities other than the “press” — because that is precisely the amendment’s purpose.

The first section of the Udall-Schumer amendment, for example, gives Congress and the states the power to “set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

In plain English: The government can limit how much you speak about an election.

The second section specifically gives Congress and the states the power to “distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”

More precisely, it would give Chuck Schumer and his incumbent congressional colleagues the power to enact a law prohibiting corporations from saying such things as “This member of Congress has too little respect for the Constitution to serve faithfully under it.”

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest