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 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 118
Thanks Tree100Thanks

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

  1. #51
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48,029
    Thanks
    22531

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    How do we know that G-d does NOT laugh when soldiers die? After all, the G-d depicted in the Old Testament could be rather cruel.
    We are not supposed to take joy in the punishment of our enemies. When the Egyptian soldiers were drowning in the sea after it parted, then closed in around them, the angels were rebuked for celebrating. G-d said to them, "How can you sing when my people are dying?" (It's in the Talmud, not the written Torah.) G-d certainly had His moments that seem cruel to humans, but He does not celebrate deaths.
    Thanks from Madeline

  2. #52
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    97,919
    Thanks
    4521

    From
    Vancouver
    There's no confusion about what constitutes hate speech. Not for the honest.

    "Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him." - legal

    "That Hungarian guy Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him" - legal

    "Don't hire Jim Smith. He's Hungarian. Hungarians are thieves" - hate speech.
    Thanks from Leo2

  3. #53
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    12,499
    Thanks
    2134

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    There's no confusion about what constitutes hate speech. Not for the honest.

    "Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him." - legal

    "That Hungarian guy Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him" - legal

    "Don't hire Jim Smith. He's Hungarian. Hungarians are thieves" - hate speech.
    Trump is a nazi, you support trump therefore you are a nazi and anything you say is hate speech. - how social justice warriors see it. Some go the step further and add in therefore it is justified to attack you because it's like punching hitter before he took power.

    Even though yours is the rational version... But I'd rather someone let me know their opinions than keeping that anger bottled up.

  4. #54
    New Member
    Joined
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    318

    From
    Blank
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    The first amendment isn't about emotion.

    Of course they made the right decision.

    And sorry but no bill is going to outdo an amendment.

    If you want to change it you have to go through the process and that is highly unlikely to happen.
    Freedom of speech has all sorts of caveats, including laws against slander, laws against inciting to panic, laws against public obscenity. I feel like someone could make the case that the latter could apply here.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy and HCProf

  5. #55
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    17,568
    Thanks
    14091

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    There are no constitutional facts to support that the Supreme Court has the last word, and there are not constitutional facts that the Supreme Court has any jurisdiction regarding the Bill of Rights, and most certainly not the First Amendment.

    I believe I have addressed the OP.
    You do realize this was a 8-1 ruling. A Constitutional Amendment would require approval of 3/4ths of the states and they must be willing to carve up their own free speech rights over one abusive example. Free speech is messy.
    Thanks from Madeline

  6. #56
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    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"...



    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.
    Dafuq? "Common sense"? As in, the PTB had no issues with mobs of citizens, angry at their government, until the dawn of 21st century, when all that lovely spirit of cooperation and brotherhood between the rich and the poor just went to Hell?

    History is not your friend, sir. I don't even know where to start.

  7. #57
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    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.
    Who loses a knife fight is no evidence of who started it.

    You know this!

    Quick refresher course:




    *Winks*

    LOLOL.
    Last edited by Madeline; 2nd June 2017 at 04:27 PM.

  8. #58
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
    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
    SCOTUS vigorously disagrees with you. A threat that would put a reasonable person in fear is protected by the 1st Amendment, until and unless the threat-maker takes a step towards carrying it out, such as buying a gun. This changes the threat-maker's words into a "true threat" which is outside 1st amendment protection.

    Threats of Violence Against Individuals :: First Amendment--Religion and Expression :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

    It's a very dynamic area of law, of course. SCOTUS will most likely make more law in the area shortly.

    But today, I can say "I am coming over tonight to burn down your house" to someone I dislike, on Facebook, and my speech is protected by the 1st amendment.

  9. #59
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
    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
    Kept away by counter-protesters, though.

    NOT the government.
    Thanks from TNVolunteer73

  10. #60
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    50,350
    Thanks
    29258

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    There's no confusion about what constitutes hate speech. Not for the honest.

    "Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him." - legal

    "That Hungarian guy Jim Smith is a thief. Don't hire him" - legal

    "Don't hire Jim Smith. He's Hungarian. Hungarians are thieves" - hate speech.
    Hello! Have you studied on the Red Scare in the US by any chance?

    Canada was HUGELY important in the struggle to curtail the growth of fascism in the US after WWII. You opened your country to those who needed physical safety. You published our anti-government broadsides and smuggled them to US pinkos and freedom lovers here.

    You guys have been lovely, lovely neighbors. ♥

    Not perfect. You had a few lapses in judgment and went on a few Communist snipe hunts among your citizens as well.

    But nothing like the US did.

    The Red Scare

    But it is necessary to FIGHT THE POWER down here. Often, hard and to the death.

    A lot.
    Thanks from Leo2 and Dr.Knuckles

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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