Schumer: Hey, you don’t really need all those free speech rights do you?

In the middle of a vigil dedicated to lament money in politics and bolster the argument for the DISCLOSE Act, Chuck Schumer said that the first amendment right of free speech is just a little too free, and he’d like to remedy that for ya by putting some new limitations on it (via Hotair):

No, he’s not a totalitarian at all. No way. He really does want you to have free speech, as long as it’s underneath a muzzle.

UPDATE: By the way, the Democrats lost on the DISCLOSE Act again this afternoon. The vote was along party lines: 53 to 45.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Sober_Thinking

    He looks kids, poop can talk!

    • toongoon

      Poop should have IT’S first amendment rights restricted, I’m sure Schumer would agree.

      • Rshill7

        Poop should, American humans should not. I’ve never heard poop say anything worth a shit anyway.

        • toongoon

          Got that right!

          • Rshill7

            Thanks Toon. For my post post below too.

            • toongoon

              😉 Right on dude.

  • E. Lee Zimmerman

    Uhh … no Amendment is absolute, eh? Thanks, New Yorkers, for keeping this idiot in Congress for so long.

    • Well, there ARE limits (and he mentioned them) BUT that does NOT even apply to what he is pushing, so yes, he is full of it.

    • M_J_S

      I tell you what should have limits: CONGRESS.

  • jackl92

    I would be in favor of a law that would outlaw any speech from Chucku.

    • sjmom

      Well said.

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Chuckie, why don’t you and all your pals in Congress and ol’ whathisname in the White House pool your funds and buy a shredder. Then you can just run the Constitution through the shredder and get rid of it in one fell swoop, instead of doing it piecemeal like you’re trying to do now. No amendment is absolute, but some people are absolute idiots…..yes, you, Chuckie, are an idiot.

  • keyesforpres

    Gee, I guess that means he wants to stop George Soros aka ‘angry white man’ from funneling his 10’s of millions into groups funding O’s campaign?

  • warpmine

    Schumer wouldn’t be there if the 17th amendment hadn’t deem and passed.

    • Sandra123456

      We should work to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment. Maybe just the effort would scare the you know what out of these Schumers.

      The 16th gave the Feds power to tax and the 17th made Senators elected not selected as the Founding Fathers intended.

      I don’t think there was ever a time in our past history when we had Senators and Reps serving 20-40 years+, and I think they are a large part of our problem.

      Under the Founding Father’s system of appointed Senators that were the States ambassadors to Washington DC health care probably wouldn’t have passed because states that objected to it would tell their Senators to not even vote on it.

      If we can’t appeal let’s term limit these Schumers.

      • warpmine


  • marketcomp

    I hope the people of New York are listening to this. The candidate running against Gilibrand in New York needs to make this section a commercial using Chuckie Schumer’s words. I don’t think the people of New York would go for this!

    • Rshill7

      Fuhgetaboutit !

      • marketcomp

        Yeah Rshill7, your probably right.

  • WordsFailMe

    Typical liberal commie arrogance. What’s wrong with New York? How can you be bamboozled so frequently and easily by these schysters?

    You don’t seem stupid and yet…

    • sjmom

      You have to ask what is wrong with NY. Look who they have as Mayor of NYC. From the neighboring state of NJ I know the mindset……………..spend, tax, destroy.

  • Rshill7

    According to Schumer here, the first amendment limits, “If left unfettered” could harm our democracy. “The wellspring of our democracy” he says. I think he just rebutted himself by referring to the limits upon the first amendment, versus limiting the first amendment itself. It’s slightly nuanced if you listen carefully.

    Anyway, the part of democracy’s “wellspring” he is talking of is of course, the democrat side of that democracy, exercised within the framework of a Republic. He didn’t throw either of those tidbits in there though. The first he obviously meant, the second he obviously ignored.

    Let’s look at what the word fettered and unfettered, the converse of the word is. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of fetter is this:

    Definition of FETTER
    1: a chain or shackle for the feet
    2: something that confines : restraint

    So, the word fettered would mean, the application of the above to our free speech rights, right? Unfettered would mean, left completely free. See the difference? Chains, shackles. That which confines, prevents, and enslaves. One would wish to think that Obama would be firmly against slavery. One would be disappointed in that wish.

    Secondly, lets analyze just a little, that phrase, “wellspring of democracy”. Huh? The wellsping of democracy is Ancient Greece is it not? Our Republic utilizes one aspect of democracy with the concept of one person one vote, but it is nothing like majority rule is it? Does the majority want Harry Reid to have a pocket veto? Does the majority really want Obama’s true idea of a fettered America? Does the majority really want our Government credit to remain downgraded and possibly further downgraded? I don’t think so.

    This litttle talk by Schumer, is telling. It is a small window into the larger room of creeping communism that refuses to creep any longer or any slower. It’s ideals have infiltrated enough into the minds of enough to make it “OK” to start advocating…albeit, to it’s base, who mistakenly “think” it would only apply to our side, incorrectly “thinking” it is a fire that will only consume one side. They think they are non-combustable fuel for that fire.

    They don’t understand fire, or creeping communism. Schumer left himself an out with his nuance mentioned in my first pragraph here. His intent, delivered to his and O’s base though is clear.

    • Joe

      Boy – You are on a roll today!


      You are correct!

      They are just running scared !

      • toongoon

        Do you really think that running scared makes them this suicidal?

        I always knew liberals were like lemmings, but this is hilarious.

  • keninil

    Maybe he was really talking about limiting the ability to slander people in TV shows like “the Newsroom” on Rush or HBO’s special on Sarah Palin. Ya think ??


  • MaroonRepublic

    I want to exercise my free speech while I still have it by saying to Chuckie; F U, you f’ing a-hole.

  • johnos2112

    You sir are a first class Pr**k! Who in the hell do you think you are? This is the kind of crap that puts me in a bad mood. These bastards need to be stopped!

  • Chevypowered

    Chuck is really hamming up that whole dictator thing. Between him and Bloomberg its a tight race for Fidel Castro’s “Dictator of the year” award.

  • Joe

    Are these idiots – listening to themselves??

    Who draws the lines – Who does the policing ?

    They really are NUTS!

    Call the wambulance >>>>>

  • hbnolikeee

    hey chuck you farley! just so wrong my keister!

  • sjmom

    Praise the Lord the Disclose failed! He needs to go along with the rest of the Left. May God have mercy upon us and free us from the evil on their lips which bespeaks of their wicked hearts.

  • Joe


    FREE SPEECHER (Debbie Shlutz) IS HECKLED >>>>>

    Ha- Ha – Ha- Ha- Ha- Ha- Ha-Ha

  • M_J_S

    Some intrepid New Yorker should limit Schumer’s free speech by punching his mouth- repeatedly.

  • freenca

    Yes the First amendment IS The Premier of the rights! Not to denigrate any of the others, yet it is the most vital, freedom of speech and religion.!!!! There are no others without those!!!!


    Don’t these idiots swear to uphold the constitution? He should be impeached.

  • aZjimbo

    A condescending, elitist liberal piece of human trash.

  • What there should be, is limits on these radical anti-American liberal progressive politicians who try, and in all too many cases succeed, in destroying our inalienable Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties, by pretending to be sanctimonious in their bogus justifications of word mincing BS tactics.

    These people must be and will be defeated, not placated and appeased by GOP establishment RINO’s at every turn.

    They have yet to see the wrath of American people, but on 6 Nov. they will..  Nov 2010 was just a warm-up. They haven’t seen nothing yet..

  • Yazz55

    pornography happens when chucky shmuky opens his pie hole and spews forth his totalitarian marxist dogma

    but I do agree that there is one place in Wash DC where speech needs to be limited
    -The CAPITAL!

  • NCHokie02

    Congratulations NY….you guys own that one.

  • kong1967

    Why don’t we start with you, Chuckie? Shut your big, stupid mouth!!

    It’s amazing to listen to them talk and then to listen to them get so offended if someone calls them communist. It’s like a skunk getting mad when you say it stinks.

  • stage9

    The “new theorists on the Supreme Court”? What is that supposed to mean?

    This guy is evil. What he is suggesting is evil.

    There are laws restricting certain “free speech” because that speech falls into a category of moral depravity. A civilized and free society does not ENDORSE perversion and evil, it RESTRAINS IT!

    If there was no restraint on pornography, there is no telling the disgusting depths pornographers would stoop to in exploiting children, sexual violence, bestiality and whatever else their sick minds could conjure.

    Prohibiting speech like “fire!” in a crowded room was necessary because some are too stupid to realize that doing so causes panic leading to danger and/or loss of life.

    Threatening the president is also a restriction on free speech because it too deters violence against the highest office in the land.

    Libel laws exist to prohibit LYING or SLANDERING!

    Any restrictions that exist on free speech are there to RESTRAIN EVIL, not squelch free and civil speech. Laws exist precisely to RESTRAIN EVIL, and evil is the camp in which radicals CONTINUALLY find themselves.

    God help us if this sick idea is realized in America! The Church will be its first target.

  • Bobemakk

    I am sick of Schumers comments and he is my senator. I wish we could find a strong conservative republican to run against him.

  • Nice to see and hear from the animals at the zoo without having to spend gas money.

    tea party patriot

  • Now we know what our founding fathers warned us about and how to recognize type’s such as (D)Schumer, the anti Constitutionalist Senator, Anti ( what ever he doesn’t like said) freedom of speech, for us all to hear, are you listening? this is and has alway’s been Schumers montra, the Constitution he saids is a living and breathing document, if that’s so in his mind, then why the speculation about a certain part of any speech? the man is a Communist Democrat.

    Schumer needs re-education, he knows, we are a Repubic not a Democracy.

    tea party patriot
    vote 2012

  • cheyennecowboy

    CHUCKIE, go screw yourself. You and the dems can’t stand it ’cause you can’t make talk radio work for you…..they’re always going broke. And the nerve of you to say the US Supreme Court is just “so wrong,” The Supremes are a lot more wise than you could ever be, at least most of them are….but, not all.

  • Chuck You Shummer, what or gives you the right to say anything to say anything about the Constitution?

  • ganshang