Should Taylor Lorenz and BLM leader be silenced for celebrating violence?



Standing up for the First Amendment is easy when you agree with the speech that’s being threatened. However, it’s standing up for free speech when you hate the words being spoken that really counts.

That’s the difficult position Glenn Beck is taking when it comes to the vile things uttered by ex-Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz and BLM co-founder Hawk Newsome. While he loathes the violence both have celebrated in the wake of recent events, he nonetheless supports their First Amendment rights.

Taylor Lorenz has come under fire for her comments following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

While speaking to Piers Morgan, Lorenz said that she felt “joy” when she got the news of Thompson’s death.

When Piers pressed her on this heinous sentiment, she somewhat recanted it and replaced “joy” with the word “celebratory” — as if that was any better. She then justified her statement by claiming that “greedy health insurance executives like [Thompson] push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people” and thus his death should be seen as “justice in the system.”

Newsome, angered by the acquittal of Daniel Penny, told a crowd, “We need some black vigilantes. People wanna jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud? How about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us?”

While Glenn is revolted by these two statements that unabashedly condone violence, he knows that they fall under speech that is protected by the Constitution.

He reads from a 1969 court case in which it was determined that speech must be evaluated according to a “two-prong” test: “Speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and it must be “likely to incite or produce such action.”

“Two standards — both of them have to be met,” says Glenn.

Neither statement meets both of these criteria, meaning that while they are reprehensible, they’re technically not illegal and therefore should be protected.

“I hate what these people have said,” Glenn admits, calling the statements from both Lorenz and Newsome “evil,” but “because I'm an American constitutionalist, I defend their right to say it.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

AOC suggests government should drop hammer on Fox News for 'very clearly' inciting violence — but there's a glaring problem



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) suggested Sunday the federal government needs to regulate Fox News because the network is "very clearly" guilty of inciting violence.

The problem, though, is that Ocasio-Cortez did not provide any evidence to back her claim.

What did AOC say?

MSNBC host Jen Psaki asked Ocasio-Cortez about Fox News' $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems and whether the company erred by not forcing Fox News to acknowledge "that they lied."

In her response, Ocasio-Cortez said the case "raises much larger questions," including what content is "permissible" for broadcast.

"We have very real issues with what is permissible on air, and we saw that with Jan. 6, and we saw that in the lead-up to Jan. 6, and how we navigate questions, not just of freedom of speech but also accountability for incitement of violence," she responded.

"This is the line that we have to really explore through law as well," she added.

When asked whether media organizations and social media platforms "should be accountable for being platforms for incitement," Ocasio-Cortez targeted Fox News and Tucker Carlson.

"I believe that when it comes to broadcast television, like Fox News, these are subject to federal law [and] federal regulation in terms of what's allowed on air and what isn't," she responded. "When you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it is very, very clearly incitement of violence. Very clearly incitement of violence.

"That is the line that I think we have to be willing to contend with," she said.

AOC and Jen Psaki talk abortion rights, the climate crisis, and her Republican colleagues youtu.be

What is the problem?

While Ocasio-Cortez claimed Fox News is "very clearly" guilty of inciting violence, she did not provide any evidence to back her allegations.

The First Amendment protects nearly all speech, but the Supreme Court has defined a few narrow exceptions. The landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, for example, ruled that one type of unprotected speech is that which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Thus if Fox News was guilty of inciting violence or, in the words of the Supreme Court, "imminent lawless action," then surely Ocasio-Cortez could point to a time when Fox News, as a media entity or any of its employees, directly called for its viewers to break the law and commit violent acts. The inability to provide such examples speaks for itself.

Meanwhile, to "explore through law" ways to hold "accountable" media organizations would require an amendment to the Constitution because the Supreme Court has a long-established precedent for interpreting First Amendment protections — and it almost never goes in the government's favor.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Shocking Mask Reversal: WHO Says Vaccinated People Must Wear Masks | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

Shocking Mask Reversal: WHO Says Vaccinated People Must Wear Masks | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

'In Defense of Looting' author tells Twitter followers to 'ATTACK' police — yet her account is still active



The author of "In Defense of Looting" — which argues that "stealing goods and destroying property are direct, pragmatic strategies of wealth redistribution" — told her Twitter followers to "ATTACK" law enforcement Sunday, noting that "this is not the time for defense, respectability, reorganization. We gotta take what we got and throw it at the motherf***ers."

Yet Vicky Osterweil's Twitter account — while having shifted to protected status in the wake of publicity over her words — was still active Tuesday morning despite her apparent violation of Twitter's policies.

What did she say?

Conservative author and Antifa expert Andy Ngo pointed out Osterweil's tweets Monday, saying she was "inciting violence & terrorist attacks through her Twitter account."

Image source: Twitter, redacted

"My shrill a** self thinks there's only one thing to do. ATTACK," she tweeted. "This is not the time for defense, respectability, reorganization. We gotta take what we got and throw it at the motherf***ers, because at the moment those two pincers (anti-trans, anti-protest) are deeply unpopular."

Minutes later Osterweil added another tweet:

Image source: Twitter, redacted


Ngo added that Osterweil soon "locked down" her Twitter account "so that she cannot be reported for inciting violence & terrorism."

It appeared she had a few things to say about Ngo as well:

Image source: Twitter

What was the reaction?

More than a few folks didn't take too kindly to Osterweil's words:

  • "People like her will talk and act tough right up until the bullets start flying at them," one commenter remarked.
  • "She is a nasty despicable human!" another user declared.
  • "People like her end up medicated on a psych ward if they and we are lucky," another user noted.
  • "We see the problem here," another commenter said. "But Twitter let's [sic] their violent rhetoric go on without any redeeming social value."

Anything else?

Osterweil's suggestion to "ATTACK" police coincided with far-left U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) telling Minnesota protesters Saturday to "get more confrontational" if the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial doesn't go their way.

In the aftermath, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promised to bring action against Waters if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) doesn't act. And it appears that Pelosi will not.

The judge in the Chauvin trial blasted Waters for her "abhorrent" comments, and while Judge Peter Cahill said that they could lead to the overturn of the trial if the defense chooses to appeal the verdict, he didn't grant a mistrial Monday.

Maxine Waters tells protesters to 'get more confrontational' and she is 'hopeful protests continue'



While speaking to protesters in Minnesota on Saturday night, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) hurled language that could be perceived as incendiary. Waters launched into a fiery rant during an appearance in Brooklyn Center, where she commanded protesters to "get more confrontational" if former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is not found guilty of murdering George Floyd.

"We're looking for a guilty verdict," Waters said of the Chauvin trial. "And we're looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd."

"If nothing does not happen, then we know, that we've got to not only stay in the street, but we've got to fight for justice," Waters continued. "But I am very hopeful, that I hope that we're going to get a verdict that will say, 'Guilty, guilty, guilty!' And if we don't, we cannot go away."

Waters ranted to angry demonstrators who had gathered to call for justice in the police shooting of 20-year-old Daunte Wright. The Democratic representative from California told the Minnesota crowd that "we are looking for a guilty verdict" in the trial of Derek Chauvin, who is charged with second and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Floyd.

A reporter asked if Chauvin was guilty of manslaughter, Waters reacted by saying, "Oh no, not manslaughter, this is guilty for murder. I don't know whether it's in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned it's first-degree murder."

Waters was also asked what protesters should do if Chauvin is not found guilty of murder.

"Well, we got to stay on the street," Waters told protesters. "And we've got to get more active. You've got to get more confrontational. You got to make sure that they know we mean business."

Maxine Waters is marching in Brooklyn Center tonight and told people to take to the streets if Chauvin is acquitted https://t.co/RemfvCCLAn
— Jack Posobiec (@Jack Posobiec)1618719293.0

Waters also said that she didn't comply with curfews implemented by law enforcement.

"I don't think anything about curfew. I don't know what curfew means," Waters stated. "Curfew means that I want you all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you stop gathering. I don't agree with that."

When Waters was asked if she was going to stay out past curfew to demonstrate with protesters, she responded, "I'm not gonna stay out here. I came here from Washington just to be here to make sure that I let my voice be heard among all of those who have been putting so much time on the street. And so I am hopeful that the protests continue."

There was an 11 p.m. curfew in Brooklyn Center on Saturday night, which was the seventh night of protests against the police killing of Wright. There were 136 arrests made Friday night in connection with protests outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department, according to law enforcement.

Maxine Waters comes to the Brooklyn Center protests and makes bold to proclaim she's not afraid of the curfew. She… https://t.co/t41LJj7i5H
— Alan Bings (@Alan Bings)1618718934.0

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) slammed Waters for her dangerous rhetoric.

"Democrats actively encouraging riots & violence," Cruz wrote on Twitter. "They want to tear us apart."

Democrats actively encouraging riots & violence. They want to tear us apart.“'We gotta stay on the street,' Wat… https://t.co/SdJslGdKea
— Ted Cruz (@Ted Cruz)1618751756.0

Rep Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) asked, "Why is Maxine Waters traveling to a different state trying to incite a riot? What good can come from this?"

This isn't the first time that Waters has been accused of spewing rhetoric that could incite violence.

In June 2018, Waters delivered a fiery speech where she instructed members of the "Resistance" to harass staffers of the Trump administration.

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere," Waters commaned.

Maxine Waters calls for attacks on Trump administration: "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in… https://t.co/z7vSo7lkcp
— Ryan Saavedra (@Ryan Saavedra)1529871853.0

RELATED: Twitter troll tricks Democrats into being outraged over Maxine Waters' 'dangerous' quote against Trump administration

WATCH the left incite violence more times than you can count

WATCH the left incite violence more times than you can count

WATCH the Left Incite Violence More Times Than You Can Count | The Glenn Beck Program

WATCH the Left Incite Violence More Times Than You Can Count | The Glenn Beck Program

Glenn gives a SCORCHING response to an Op-ed claiming his show 'incites violence'

Glenn gives a SCORCHING response to an Op-ed claiming his show 'incites violence'