During a Twitter discussion on free speech vs. hate speech, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted the following:
it doesn't. hate speech is excluded from protection. dont just say you love the constitution…read it https://t.co/znZJ8cPvpX
— Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
That didn’t go over well, especially not after everybody remembered Cuomo has a law degree:
@ChrisCuomo how did you graduate law school?
— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) May 6, 2015
Ass. You are a disgrace to Fordham Law School, which only admitted you because of your famous father. https://t.co/RWEYvCUGEs
— Popehat (@Popehat) May 6, 2015
Such a painfully dumb tweet! @ChrisCuomo: can you point to where this free speech "exception" is in US Constitution? https://t.co/Z4yCw7IrsQ
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 6, 2015
@Popehat I love how he told that person to go read the Constitution, as though one would find this free speech "exclusion" there.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 6, 2015
@ChrisCuomo hey, long time listener first time caller, looking for this in this constitution you speak of. Got a link?
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) May 6, 2015
@ChrisCuomo I did read the First Amendment, and still can't find the "hate speech" exception to free speech. Can you point it out for us?
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 6, 2015
This last one got a response:
@EdMorrissey I will keep saying one word: chaplinsky
— Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
@BenHowe @ChrisCuomo Just to give Chris a hint, SCOTUS upheld #1A protection for Westboro protests ("hate speech") 8-1 in Snyder v Phelps.
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 6, 2015
Just CTRL+Fd the Constitution for "Chaplinsky" but didn't find anything. Maybe I forgot to put it all on a single page?
— Peter Suderman (@petersuderman) May 6, 2015
@EdMorrissey @BenHowe but not in chaplinsky. I am waiting for your reply.
— Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire was a 1942 Supreme Court case that established the “fighting words” doctrine, articulated by Justice Frank Murphy thusly:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
(FWIW, the ACLU is not particularly on Cuomo’s side.)
Anyhoo, Twitter!
It's good that Chris Cuomo is out there to get folks who vehemently disagree about Constitution to finally agree on it for 3 seconds
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) May 6, 2015
UPDATEROONY 11:43 a.m.: An hour later, Cuomo is done with all of you:
For last time (today), I didn't mean the language of 1A, I meant the case law. And hate speech has been protected except for fighting words.
— Chris Cuomo (@ChrisCuomo) May 6, 2015
[Image via screengrab]
——
>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
