I can’t…Loretta Lynch said what now?
“The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence,” she said.
“Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action,” said Lynch.
After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.
Wait wait, let me get this straight. Fourteen people murdered in the name of Islam in the United States, and the attorney general of the United States is more concerned with people getting upset that fourteen people were murdered in the name of Islam…in the United States. Do I have this correct?
Now, for those of you who may not understand this, allow me to break it down for you. The first amendment is kind of important (Watch “The First Amendment: A Liberal Interpretation” here). It was designed to ensure that precisely what Loretta Lynch wants to do does not happen. Meaning, you’re supposed to be able to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive it may be, period.
Now, leftists will inevitably make the argument “Well, I’m not allowed to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater am I?! So THERE!”
See that’s what we call a “straw man.” Yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater is not merely speech, but a call to action. An active “call to action” designed to cause physical harm is not the same thing as “free speech.” It’s for that same reason that “freedom of expression” is not protected under the constitution as speech. “Expression” can be subjective, as seen by some people expressing themselves through painting, singing, urinating on a crucifix or even chopping off their testicles and calling themselves women.
Speech on the other hand, even offensive speech, even if you really don’t like it, is protected. So can a racist KKK Democrat like Robert Byrd say “I hate black people!!” Yes, he can. Can a racist, KKK Democrat say “Okay everybody, let’s meet at 7:00PM to lynch black people.” No, he can’t. The speech is not the crime, but the accessory to an action.
So the First Amendment’s parameters are pretty clear. Loretta SJW Lynch’s definition of “bigoted actions” is not, which could of course lead to selective prosecution. Which some might argue, is the goal in the first place.
Leftists don’t know what the First Amendment means any more than they understand the Second. Watch the video below to learn more.