Hate speech is defined by dictionary.com as:
“speech, writing, or nonverbal communication that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability:”
At News Verifier Media we do not condone white supremacy, or talk that is hurtful or ignorant.
Disclaimer: This article is about the constitution, the rights it affords all citizens, and the responsibility of every member of congress to defend those rights.
According to a report from Axios, Senate Democrats will propose a resolution to condemn white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-government militias and fringe conspiracy theories.
This resolution is in direct conflict with the oath of office that each and every member of congress has taken. The first amendment to the constitution states as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
A Terrible concept is that ignorant groups such as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-government militias and fringe conspiracy theories exist.
Another concept is that it’s possible for them peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The oath of office to become a member of congress is the following:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Every person in congress is required to uphold that oath. Failure to do so is a valid reason to remove them from office.
The United States Supreme Court heard a case in 2017 Matal v. Tam (2017)
While the case dealt with trademarks the court’s decision affirmed that:
“speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.”