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 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 118
Thanks Tree98Thanks

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

  1. #41
    The Un-Holy One The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,930
    Thanks
    17896

    From
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    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.
    If the counter protesters "started it", why were they the ones stabbed? Either the other side, the skinheads or whatever the hell they are, started it, or those others were just pussies, drew blades against unarmed opponents.

  2. #42
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    11,723
    Thanks
    5633

    From
    NE Wisconsin
    I fully support the first amendment, as long as it doesn't apply to threatened violence.

    In most instances, dimwits like WBC and the KKK are kept a respectful distance away from solemn events, such as a military funeral.

    Cheers,

    Bourne
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,098
    Thanks
    28053

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    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.
    Right you are! And then there's this:

    Florida Pays Survivors of a 1923 Racist Attack : Rosewood: Blacks were run out of town by a white mob. At last, the state allocates $2 million in reparations. - latimes

    I also expect more "sectarian" violence by mobs in the near future. But if the government neglects its duty to maintain law and order as to a particular area, anarchy has broken out.

    For example, the South Side of Chicago.
    Thanks from Bourne

  4. #44
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    1987

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    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.
    Just because there are laws on the books doesn't mean they get enforced, or if nobody is hurt than many would also feel there is no crime.

    I'm also by no means a legal expert either, just the phrasing that I heard could have implications.

    The main concern is that the end to free speech is on the books.

    One anecdote concerning strange laws; I'm aware of one case fairly recently (2-3 years ) where a man called a woman a slut, she successfully sued him under some law from the 1850's because he had disparaged her social value falsely and risked her being unable to find a proper suitor.
    Thanks from Dr.Knuckles

  5. #45
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,092
    Thanks
    2534

    From
    UK/Australia
    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.
    With respect, my friend, you appear to be confusing freedom of expression with freedom from the consequences of that expression. It is neither unpopularity, nor caring about hurt feelings, with which the law is concerned. Freedom of expression does not encompass libel, slander, or incitement to violence - as you are aware, there are criminal sanctions against such activities.

    I find the term 'social justice warrior' suspect, and I am a member of the demographic to which you refer - inasmuch as I am a few years away from completing my university education. That demographic has traditionally been viewed by the older generation as the architects of the demise of civilisation as we know it. Little could be further from the truth - it is the educated young who engender progress in society. And anyone who has a genuine concern for social justice has my approval. There are far too many self-interested jobs-worths in society, whose only concern is the bottom line, and sod the disadvantaged!
    Thanks from Dangermouse and Madeline

  6. #46
    Senior Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    1987

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    With respect, my friend, you appear to be confusing freedom of expression with freedom from the consequences of that expression. It is neither unpopularity, nor caring about hurt feelings, with which the law is concerned. Freedom of expression does not encompass libel, slander, or incitement to violence - as you are aware, there are criminal sanctions against such activities.
    Yes, and that is common sense for hundreds of years. However, more recently "hate speech" has been added to that list.

    So, it becomes a concern as to what speech gets labeled as "hateful"...

    I find the term 'social justice warrior' suspect, and I am a member of the demographic to which you refer - inasmuch as I am a few years away from completing my university education. That demographic has traditionally been viewed by the older generation as the architects of the demise of civilisation as we know it. Little could be further from the truth - it is the educated young who engender progress in society. And anyone who has a genuine concern for social justice has my approval. There are far too many self-interested jobs-worths in society, whose only concern is the bottom line, and sod the disadvantaged!
    We aren't talking about young adults who represent a threat because they are sick of the oppression in society (women's rights, and other similar movements of the past decades for example)... and while I accept it's a small percentage, they are an extremely vocal group who are around the mental age of toddlers.

    The danger is that this vocal group will make the more reasonable group irrelevant.

  7. #47
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,392
    Thanks
    21217

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The court relied on a 1960s era Supreme Court doctrine that collapsed the redress and petition clause with the speech clause. They are two seperate clauses with two different meanings.
    Please explain this conflation of two clauses you are speaking of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The Supreme Court's oath of office states that a justice will uphold the Constitution, not stare decisis.
    Except that prior Opinions are what the Constitution means, so adhering to stare decisis is upholding the Constitution. Unless enough Justices really think the prior decision to the contrary was wrongly decided, in which case the Court will reverse itself. This does not happen often (compared to the number of cases the Court hears, that is).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The First Amendment is not under federal jurisdiction.
    That makes no sense. The federal courts exercise the judicial power of the United States, U.S. Const. art. III, 1, which means the power to hear and decide cases involving disputes over constitutional rights, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. That includes First Amendment disputes.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and Madeline

  8. #48
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,392
    Thanks
    21217

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Are you saying that no possible argument exists, ergo, the Supreme Court has never overuled another Supreme Court opinion?
    Only the Supreme Court - or a constitutional amendment - can override the rulings of the Supreme Court.
    Thanks from Minotaur, BigLeRoy and Madeline

  9. #49
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    45,392
    Thanks
    21217

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    Not sure the original framers would have written to include Muslims, communists or the Westboro Church....
    It absolutely was. Speech that is popular does not need protection, because the majority will protect it. Unpopular speech, however, does need protection, and the Free Speech Clause provides that - to anyone and everyone.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and Madeline

  10. #50
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,070
    Thanks
    226

    From
    U.S.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Please explain this conflation of two clauses you are speaking of.


    Except that prior Opinions are what the Constitution means, so adhering to stare decisis is upholding the Constitution. Unless enough Justices really think the prior decision to the contrary was wrongly decided, in which case the Court will reverse itself. This does not happen often (compared to the number of cases the Court hears, that is).


    That makes no sense. The federal courts exercise the judicial power of the United States, U.S. Const. art. III, 1, which means the power to hear and decide cases involving disputes over constitutional rights, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. That includes First Amendment disputes.
    Good questions. I am short on time. I will give a detailed response later this evening.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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