Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

The first amendment does not exist to protect polite speech that everyone agrees with. It exists to protect speech that people - or the government - find “offensive.” That’s the whole point. And that protection extends to Shiloh Hendrix.

Brittany Hughes

59,683 subscribers

20,159 views • 2 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The First Amendment was passed not to protect convenient speech, but to protect the speech that nobody wants to hear.

The First Amendment was passed not to protect convenient speech, but to protect the speech that nobody wants to hear.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr

831,824 views • 1 year ago

Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination has sparked a discussion about hate speech and the 1st amendment: Cenk Uygur: "So what? He said terrible things about MLK. Ok so Charlie doesn't like him and said bad things, so what? I can't understand why people then say 'We have to shut it down' Did you think that people were only going to say pleasant things throughout your entire life? Did you think that people were only going to say things you agree with and that you find to be comfortable? No, the whole point of the first amendment is sometimes we're going to make each other uncomfortable. It doesn't protect popular speech, it protects unpopular speech." Tara Palmeri: "Even offensive speech." Cenk Uygur: "The whole point of the 1st amendment is not to protect speech about how cute puppies and babies are. The point of the first amendment is to protect offensive speech. The people who take most offensive generally speaking in society are the powerful." There is nothing more American than offensive speech.

Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination has sparked a discussion about hate speech and the 1st amendment: Cenk Uygur: "So what? He said terrible things about MLK. Ok so Charlie doesn't like him and said bad things, so what? I can't understand why people then say 'We have to shut it down' Did you think that people were only going to say pleasant things throughout your entire life? Did you think that people were only going to say things you agree with and that you find to be comfortable? No, the whole point of the first amendment is sometimes we're going to make each other uncomfortable. It doesn't protect popular speech, it protects unpopular speech." Tara Palmeri: "Even offensive speech." Cenk Uygur: "The whole point of the 1st amendment is not to protect speech about how cute puppies and babies are. The point of the first amendment is to protect offensive speech. The people who take most offensive generally speaking in society are the powerful." There is nothing more American than offensive speech.

Eric Abbenante

485,281 views • 10 months ago

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”

RFK Jr. blasts Governor Walz for not understanding the first amendment: “We’re in a very frightening time now where we are seeing the normalization of censorship. I saw this quote Governor Walz, said last year where he said that the First Amendment is not absolute, that it does not protect misinformation or disinformation, and he is legally wrong there, it does protect that. The First Amendment protects speech, true speech, and it protects lies. It protects good speech, and it protects bad speech. It protects all speech.” They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous.” “Louis Brandeis said that the remedy for bad speech, the remedy for lies is not censorship, it's more speech. If we don't understand that, we will lose democracy for sure.”

End Tribalism in Politics

261,809 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”

BREAKING: Jack Smith just eviscerated the Republican talking point that Trump was protected by the First Amendment when he attempted to defraud the American people. “The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime. Speech that is used to facilitate a crime — a fraud crime in particular — is not protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court precedent on that is clear.”

Ed Krassenstein

307,492 views • 6 months ago

They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous. That is the price of democracy.

They didn't pass the First Amendment to protect speech that everybody likes. They passed it to protect the speech that's inconvenient, that's abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that's dangerous. That is the price of democracy.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr

1,255,739 views • 1 year ago

The First Amendment protects hateful speech. But that protection does not mean that others are absolved of the moral obligation to confront it with the truth.

The First Amendment protects hateful speech. But that protection does not mean that others are absolved of the moral obligation to confront it with the truth.

Ted Cruz

65,739 views • 8 months ago

Don Lemon and the First Amendment — What It Does Not Protect The First Amendment protects speech — not trespass, intimidation, or the disruption of religious worship. This post examines conduct shown on video and the legal boundaries that apply.

Don Lemon and the First Amendment — What It Does Not Protect The First Amendment protects speech — not trespass, intimidation, or the disruption of religious worship. This post examines conduct shown on video and the legal boundaries that apply.

DeepFakeQuotes

35,009 views • 6 months ago

POSOBIEC: "WE DON'T CRIMINALIZE SPEECH." Jack Posobiec unleashes on the conviction of Shiloh Hendrix sets a catastrophic precedent, saying that prosecuting offensive speech threatens First Amendment protections and reflects selective enforcement of the law.

POSOBIEC: "WE DON'T CRIMINALIZE SPEECH." Jack Posobiec unleashes on the conviction of Shiloh Hendrix sets a catastrophic precedent, saying that prosecuting offensive speech threatens First Amendment protections and reflects selective enforcement of the law.

Real America's Voice (RAV)

12,518 views • 2 days ago

Rep. Raskin: "[Congressional Republicans] have been saying that there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for." Jack Smith: "The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime."

Rep. Raskin: "[Congressional Republicans] have been saying that there's some kind of First Amendment defense that Donald Trump would have had to the crimes you indicted him for." Jack Smith: "The First Amendment does not protect speech that facilitates a crime."

Home of the Brave

25,066 views • 6 months ago

Q: Isn't the First Amendment at risk when the FCC Chair tries to intimidate a news network over content that the state disagrees with? Pence: Well, the First Amendment protects against government censorship. The First Amendment does not protect entertainers

Q: Isn't the First Amendment at risk when the FCC Chair tries to intimidate a news network over content that the state disagrees with? Pence: Well, the First Amendment protects against government censorship. The First Amendment does not protect entertainers

FactPost

557,010 views • 10 months ago

🔥INSANE. “It seems very much that Shiloh Hendrix is on trial for SPEECH.. and for a THOUGHT crime” - Jack Posobiec Jack discusses the trial of Shiloh Hendrix for a VERBAL altercation on a playground with SOMALIANS. Are we at the point where we are criminally charging a mom who was defending her son having his lunch stolen? Popular speech does not need protection.

🔥INSANE. “It seems very much that Shiloh Hendrix is on trial for SPEECH.. and for a THOUGHT crime” - Jack Posobiec Jack discusses the trial of Shiloh Hendrix for a VERBAL altercation on a playground with SOMALIANS. Are we at the point where we are criminally charging a mom who was defending her son having his lunch stolen? Popular speech does not need protection.

Johnny St.Pete

56,268 views • 3 days ago

The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly. It does not protect mobs invading private property. You cannot storm a church and call it free speech. That is a violation of civil rights.

The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly. It does not protect mobs invading private property. You cannot storm a church and call it free speech. That is a violation of civil rights.

Sheriff Mark Lamb

47,824 views • 6 months ago

“12,000 people a year are being arrested in the UK for ‘offensive’ things they write online.” “30 a day are being arrested for ‘speech crime.’” Writer Andrew Doyle just revealed how UK police have been trained to think their primary role is to “monitor speech” and “arrest people for offensive speech.” “In the US … you’ve got the First Amendment as this barrier to the imposition of authoritarian rule.” But that barrier is now weakening. “Tim Walz, in the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, literally said … that the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech or misinformation.” “Actually, it does.” “You’re allowed to say things that are false. Free speech also covers lying,” Andrew Doyle

“12,000 people a year are being arrested in the UK for ‘offensive’ things they write online.” “30 a day are being arrested for ‘speech crime.’” Writer Andrew Doyle just revealed how UK police have been trained to think their primary role is to “monitor speech” and “arrest people for offensive speech.” “In the US … you’ve got the First Amendment as this barrier to the imposition of authoritarian rule.” But that barrier is now weakening. “Tim Walz, in the vice presidential debate with JD Vance, literally said … that the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech or misinformation.” “Actually, it does.” “You’re allowed to say things that are false. Free speech also covers lying,” Andrew Doyle

Jan Jekielek

12,710 views • 4 months ago

Justice Antonin Scalia: Flag burning = 'a form of expression' "I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea – “I hate the government,” “the government is unjust,” whatever." “That’s just saying we dislike the government. It’s not urging people to take up arms against the government. That’s something quite different,”

Justice Antonin Scalia: Flag burning = 'a form of expression' "I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress. Burning the flag is a form of expression. Speech doesn’t just mean written words or oral words. It could be semaphore. And burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea – “I hate the government,” “the government is unjust,” whatever." “That’s just saying we dislike the government. It’s not urging people to take up arms against the government. That’s something quite different,”

Judge Napolitano

20,879 views • 11 months ago

The U.S. government exists to protect the individual rights of AMERICAN citizens. It does NOT exist to protect the people of Haiti, Syria, or Somalia. Simply put, (internally) our government’s core job is to shield us from crime, fraud, and invasion. The Democratic Party is doing the exact opposite of what government is supposed to do.

The U.S. government exists to protect the individual rights of AMERICAN citizens. It does NOT exist to protect the people of Haiti, Syria, or Somalia. Simply put, (internally) our government’s core job is to shield us from crime, fraud, and invasion. The Democratic Party is doing the exact opposite of what government is supposed to do.

Avery Daye

42,735 views • 1 month ago

In America, we have founding principles that protect and guarantee free speech, open dialogue, free press, and access to that speech without undue barriers. Our leaders should not lament that—they should celebrate it and fight to protect it.

In America, we have founding principles that protect and guarantee free speech, open dialogue, free press, and access to that speech without undue barriers. Our leaders should not lament that—they should celebrate it and fight to protect it.

NetChoice

19,982 views • 1 year ago

Rep. Raskin: Under the First Amendment, you have the right to engage in speech that is distasteful and offensive and disagreeable. You don't get to go around as the government and police other people's speech. These are intolerable violations of the rights of the freedom of press and the freedom of speech

Rep. Raskin: Under the First Amendment, you have the right to engage in speech that is distasteful and offensive and disagreeable. You don't get to go around as the government and police other people's speech. These are intolerable violations of the rights of the freedom of press and the freedom of speech

FactPost

24,420 views • 10 months ago

.Elon Musk: "It's bizarre that we've come to this point where free speech used to be a liberal value. And yet we see from the 'left' a desire to censor. That seems crazy. I think we should be extremely concerned about anything that undermines the First Amendment... We must protect free speech, and free speech is only relevant when it's someone you don't like saying something you don't like because, obviously, free speech that you like is easy. The thing about censorship is that for those who would advocate it, just remember at some point that will be turned on you."

.Elon Musk: "It's bizarre that we've come to this point where free speech used to be a liberal value. And yet we see from the 'left' a desire to censor. That seems crazy. I think we should be extremely concerned about anything that undermines the First Amendment... We must protect free speech, and free speech is only relevant when it's someone you don't like saying something you don't like because, obviously, free speech that you like is easy. The thing about censorship is that for those who would advocate it, just remember at some point that will be turned on you."

KanekoaTheGreat

5,749,553 views • 3 years ago

This is the speech that made the whole government to panic.

This is the speech that made the whole government to panic.

𝗩𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱

25,721 views • 5 months ago