I Like JD Vance So Much That I Want Him Primaried Hard
Democrats Are Making a New Martyr
Talking Heads Are Missing Labor Market Strength
Trump Is Minnesota's President, Too
Can Republicans Defy History in 2026?
Watching History Unfold
Conflicting Thoughts on Venezuela From a Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul Noninterventionist
Will President Trump Push for Real Change at CNN?
Real Protests vs Fake Protests
Iran Does Not Need a Crown — It Needs a Republic
Litigation Funding Helps Level the Legal Playing Field
The Anti-Energy Litigation Industry’s Surprising Ally? Louisiana’s Republican Attorney Gen...
Kristi Noem Torches CNN’s Jake Tapper in Fiery Clash Over Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Miami Jury Convicts Two Executives in $34M Medicare Advantage Brace Fraud Scheme
Chinese National With Overstayed Visa Charged as Ringleader in Firearms Conspiracy
Tipsheet

Brutal: Ben Shapiro Crushes Piers Morgan on the First Amendment

Piers Morgan -- a citizen of the country America defeated in two wars to gain and retain our independence -- keeps telling Americans that our constitution is deficient.  His usual target is the Second Amendment, but these days, he's going after the First Amendment, as well.  In the wake of Charlottesville, Morgan's solution to hate speech is to ban it by amending and limiting free speech protections:

Advertisement


Conservative writer Ben Shapiro was having none of it, touching off this Twitter exchange, which predictably ended poorly for the pompous Brit.  After Shapiro corrected his bad misrepresentation and ignorance of relevant caselaw, Morgan claimed to know more about the constitution than the Harvard-trained attorney.  Things went downhill from there:

Advertisement


This was an exceptionally stupid insult from Morgan because Shapiro resigned from Breitbart in protest, then built his own (rather successful) company.  Ben finished him:


Oof.  Anyway, on the topic that started that argument, the Los Angeles Times is out with a strong editorial arguing against constraining the First Amendment's capacious protections of speech and expression, including safeguarding loathsome people and their ideas:

The vast majority of Americans would sooner have their communities hit by a plague of locusts than by the torch-bearing racists who invaded Charlottesville. Nevertheless, it is vitally important to recognize that people are constitutionally free to hold them even the most deplorable views, and to express them as well. Counter-protesters, for their part, are equally entitled to say clearly and forcefully that racism, anti-Semitism and similar beliefs that denigrate or deny the humanity of others have no place in our society. Neither side, however, has a right to start throwing punches. Nor should the mere risk of such violence be used as pretext for denying people the ability to exercise their right to free speech or assembly. These exceptionally American notions seem lost on some of our leaders. A case in point: Several elected officials have asked the federal government to withdraw a permit for an Aug. 26 rally at San Francisco’s Crissy Field organized by Patriot Prayer, a Portland-based group of right-wing provocateurs. That is the exactly wrong approach. Denying permits in order to shut down speech that is offensive or so controversial that it might provoke a violent backlash is the act of an autocratic government...It is in fractious times like these that we must hold firmest to constitutional principles.

Advertisement

Read the entire thing.  I'll leave you with a flashback to Shapiro dismantling Morgan on guns:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement