View Poll Results: 1st Amendment Needs Change?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • WBC protesters should be in a re-education gulag as we spoeck, learning some fucking manners.

    1 5.00%
  • It was a funeral! That's so outrageous, it should not have been protected.

    0 0%
  • WBC should have been forced by the cops to move 1 mile away. Easy. now everyone's happy.

    1 5.00%
  • WBC is so horrible, who gives a fuck what their rights are?

    0 0%
  • WBC porotesters are Americans, and they had the right to do exactly what they did.

    17 85.00%
  • I hate rude people.

    1 5.00%
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 118
Thanks Tree100Thanks

Thread: Do You Think The First Amendment Goes Too Far?

  1. #31
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,499
    Thanks
    2134

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh

    Do You Think The First Amendment Goes Too Far?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    I will ignore the insult inherent in the opening sentence, and you pose an interesting issue in the second - I shall attempt to address that.

    The basic premise of which is correct, but the issue is resolved by who, and under what circumstances, labels an utterance as hate speech.

    In any criminal trial issuing from such utterance, the evidence would be examined and cross-examined by counsel adhering to the rules of evidence, and under the control of the judiciary. As with any criminal matter, guilt would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and many factors - including intent, and common public perception, would be considered.

    If I were to stand on a box at Hyde Park corner, and use a loud-hailer to exhort the British public to deport all Muslims or Jews from this green and pleasant land - it may be argued that I was merely expressing an opinion to which I was entitled. However, it might also be proven that in so doing - I was (a) causing offence and fear amongst those demographics, and (b) initiating support for radical groups to take other, more aggressive, actions against those communities. My right to express my opinion might, in a court of law, be found to have been subsumed by the rights of others to peaceful enjoyment - and my actions deemed to be hate speech.

    On the other hand, if I were publicly to announce my support for the Barnardo's charitable institutions, and exhort others to contribute thereto - I doubt my utterances could be construed as abrogating the rights of anyone.

    So, as I indicated in my previous post, my community does not regard the right to freedom of expression as absolute, or without regard for its effects upon out other freedoms. Yours may very well do so - a matter upon which I am not qualified to comment.
    No, no insult intended... I'm Canadian, I understand what it means that we no longer have free speech.

    Exactly... Now you have to stifle your speech or risk having to go through a lengthy trial to prove that the other person is a friggin crybaby (more often than not), then when you consider just how far the debate has shifted. If you believe that countries should take care of their own problems for themselves instead of relying on others, that gets called "white nationalist" which is a type of hate, and therefore, by the twisted logic of a minority of insane people making that kind of speech can be deemed hateful which has the connotation of incitement to violence.

    That might not win in court, but is justification that could (possibly with tweaking) justify having to defend oneself in court and all the associated costs.

    Look into the social justice warrior culture that are a few years away from leaving college and joining the real world... I know it sounds a stretch, but while the risk isn't some extreme crackdown, it will be a growing concern.

    Free speech was always about protecting unpopular speech, but if being unpopular = hateful. There's no good outcome from this.

    Although, free speech is only constrained by issues like fraud, false alarm, creating panic or if it's to incite violence. However, unless it's a direct incitement to violence or a direct and actionable threat, I don't care about hurt feelings.
    Last edited by bmanmcfly; 1st June 2017 at 08:20 PM.

  2. #32
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,175
    Thanks
    250

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Apologies for the crappy poll.
    The poll is not crappy. There are only so many questions that can be asked. Some point of view will always be left out.
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #33
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    40,419
    Thanks
    15846

    From
    God Bless Texas
    They have the right to say what they say, and biker gangs have the right to form a perimeter of protection from them.
    Thanks from Madeline

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    I think the first amendment was based on the idea that people were a homogeneous group but (somewhat) respectively disagreed. Not sure the original framers would have written to include Muslims, communists or the Westboro Church, which most likely would have been tarred and feathered or run out of town, like polygamists were (Mormons should have had a lawyer take it to the Supreme Court, but maybe it was too soon for that anyway).
    Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution, sir. I expect they had all shouted abuse at British soldiers and sympathizers.

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    Thanks for the invite.

    First off, I don't feel Canada's laws are better than the US's. Freedom of speech is a yes/no question. Not a matter of degrees. We all have freedom of speech in the Western world.

    Where I believe your SCOTUS "got it wrong", and where state courts "get it wrong" is the idea that if you have one right, and it's a high profile one, that you can commit any other illegal act -- and suddenly the illegal act becomes legal. Because of the other, more publically endorsed right.

    When they are unrelated.

    Both our countries get freedom of speech from English common law, a constitution and a bill of rights. But they differ in Suprene Court rulings.


    You can't tell a bank teller "put 2,000 in my bag or I'll shoot you" and call that free speech. You are robbing a bank. A totally different offence.

    You can't say "I'm coming to kill your kid tonight" and say that's free speech. That is a separate criminal offence. Uttering Threats.


    I can't think of any similar case to the Westbro group here. But I would think the Westbro group would have been told they are Causing a Disturbance. Section 175 Criminal Code. I'm my own words that would be "disturbing other people in a public place by using insulting or offensive language".

    They were Causing a Disturbance at that funeral. So they'd be told to stop and charged and given a court date. If they didn't cease, they'd be arrested for Causing a Disturbance and held until the funeral ended. Then released with a court date.

    They would have the right to publish their views. Speak them. Write them. Put them on Facebook. Write a monthly newsletter etc. But they couldn't go victimize some family and get away with a blatant criminal act simply because the criminal act involved "speaking". Any more than you can commit an ID fraud and call it freedom of speech because you spoke while doing it.
    Here's the problem with that. Americans take forever to marshall behind a minority group, etc. UNLESS they all agree, that group is being treated unfairly.

    Which comes ONLY from viewing video of the police cracking skulls mercilessly. I cannot think of ANY protest riot that was principally between the protesters and the counter-protesters.

    Attica Prison Riot, 1971.

    Attica: The US prison rebellion that ended in carnage - BBC News

    39 people killed, scores injured -- and (then NY state Gov. & a GOP-er) Nelson Rockefeller (think "Trumpish,but with brains) was kept out of the white house due to public disgust at what he had done. The rioters may not have improved conditions for prisoners, but they at least made the public aware there was a horrible problem.

    If the government can oppress citizens over fears they might become "violent" in a future gathering, then that government has eviscerated the 1st amendment and we are now allowing it to censor, by any means necessary, the alleged thought crimes of angry citizens.

    Remember Waco?
    Last edited by Madeline; 1st June 2017 at 08:54 PM.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Attica's prisoners obviously had no right to commit murder. BUT the NY Gov. (R) Nelson Rockefeller had no right to put use a program of brutal repression to try and keep the protest/riot from ever starting or to bring it to a close.

    We can cope with violent crime and even murders better than we can cope with a dictatorship.
    Last edited by Madeline; 1st June 2017 at 09:40 PM.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,919
    Thanks
    4521

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Wow, really? They have no history of any criminal activity here in the US.

    Canada banned them because they say such hideous things, and for no other reason?
    No, Canada denied them entry because we don't need a reason to deny foreigners entry.

    Citizens have rights. Visitors have privileges.
    Thanks from Madeline, jacobfitcher and The Man

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    No, Canada denied them entry because we don't need a reason to deny foreigners entry.

    Citizens have rights. Visitors have privileges.

    Kindly forgive my stupid moment!

    Lol.
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  9. #39
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,956
    Thanks
    1279

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Here's the problem with that. Americans take forever to marshall behind a minority group, etc. UNLESS they all agree, that group is being treated unfairly.

    Which comes ONLY from viewing video of the police cracking skulls mercilessly. I cannot think of ANY protest riot that was principally between the protesters and the counter-protesters.

    Attica Prison Riot, 1971.

    Attica: The US prison rebellion that ended in carnage - BBC News

    39 people killed, scores injured -- and (then NY state Gov. & a GOP-er) Nelson Rockefeller (think "Trumpish,but with brains) was kept out of the white house due to public disgust at what he had done. The rioters may not have improved conditions for prisoners, but they at least made the public aware there was a horrible problem.

    If the government can oppress citizens over fears they might become "violent" in a future gathering, then that government has eviscerated the 1st amendment and we are now allowing it to censor, by any means necessary, the alleged thought crimes of angry citizens.

    Remember Waco?
    I cannot think of ANY protest riot that was principally between the protesters and the counter-protesters.

    Are you familiar with this incident?

    The 2016 Sacramento riot was a civil disorder at a rally outside the California State Capitol in Sacramento, California on June 26, 2016. Left-wing protesters and white nationalist groups were involved. Police say the violence was started by the left-wing counter-protesters. Ten people were hospitalized for stabbing and laceration wounds with the majority being counter-protesters.

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Sacramento_riot

    I expect more of the same in the coming months.
    Thanks from Madeline

  10. #40
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,919
    Thanks
    4521

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    No, no insult intended... I'm Canadian, I understand what it means that we no longer have free speech.

    Exactly... Now you have to stifle your speech or risk having to go through a lengthy trial to prove that the other person is a friggin crybaby (more often than not), then when you consider just how far the debate has shifted. If you believe that countries should take care of their own problems for themselves instead of relying on others, that gets called "white nationalist" which is a type of hate, and therefore, by the twisted logic of a minority of insane people making that kind of speech can be deemed hateful which has the connotation of incitement to violence.

    That might not win in court, but is justification that could (possibly with tweaking) justify having to defend oneself in court and all the associated costs.

    Look into the social justice warrior culture that are a few years away from leaving college and joining the real world... I know it sounds a stretch, but while the risk isn't some extreme crackdown, it will be a growing concern.

    Free speech was always about protecting unpopular speech, but if being unpopular = hateful. There's no good outcome from this.

    Although, free speech is only constrained by issues like fraud, false alarm, creating panic or if it's to incite violence. However, unless it's a direct incitement to violence or a direct and actionable threat, I don't care about hurt feelings.
    One of the weirdest thing about this website to me is the number of people who are utterly convinced that they're not allowed to say things. And then they say them, repeatedly, and nothing happens to them.

    Things my aunt says on her Facebook page twice daily - things I overhear daily - things my coworkers say loudly at lunch. But come on PH and there's someone who's certain that they're being oppressed because they're not allowed to say it.

    What you you mean is that you can't say these things without a loud chorus of angry disagreement.

    Why do you have free speech to say something but if some dimwit 14 year old SJW uses their free speech to disagree they are somehow taking away your rights? You said it. They said they found it offensive.

    Great. Theyre using the same rights you are.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Second Amendment
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 5th October 2015, 01:44 PM
  2. 2nd amendment
    By IronFist in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 1st June 2015, 06:43 PM
  3. First Amendment
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6th August 2014, 10:50 AM
  4. What of the first amendment?
    By Cicero in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 7th September 2013, 08:40 AM
  5. The First Amendment is Gone
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 6th July 2010, 05:05 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed