Poll: The Defense of the First Amendment

[Housebroken Lunatic]

There are some limits to uphold, such as blatant hatespeech.

Why?

Words hold no power by themselves. Words are only given power by people. If words of hate are uttered, they will be powerless if people just refuse to give them power. Forbidding some words to be spoken is to give them power.

How about letting all words go free, and letting people choose which ones to give power to rather than empowering some words through censorship?

 

[A Weary Exile]

There are some limits to uphold, such as blatant hatespeech.

Why?

Words hold no power by themselves. Words are only given power by people. If words of hate are uttered, they will be powerless if people just refuse to give them power. Forbidding some words to be spoken is to give them power.

How about letting all words go free, and letting people choose which ones to give power to rather than empowering some wordes through censorship?

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[open trap]

some people do but not too many, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others im k

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

People do all the time

The KKK shouldn't have a right to "protest" because they're inciting violence against others with their message.

First amendment rights stop when what you're saying hurts people

 

[badgersprite]

I've had people on the internet respond to me criticising their arguments/rants by claiming Freedom of Speech. I love reminding them that the First Amendment protects them from the Government, not from me and my right to disagree. =P

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

People do all the time

The KKK shouldn't have a right to "protest" because they're inciting violence against others with their message.

Arresting people for saying words that are "inciting violence" has to be one of the most ridiculous reasons ever for arresting and sentencing someone.

The KKK of all groups should be allowed to makes themselves heard so that everyone can understand just how idiotic they are. The way it is now, hategroups of different kinds looks like oppressed heroes because they are discriminated from saying their piece. This attracts followers more than anything.

If anything, hategroups like the KKK should be the ones who are heard the most. The more they are allowed to speak, the more people will see the foolishness of their opinions and their irrational hatred.

First amendment rights stop when what you're saying hurts people

Words can't hurt you unless you let them. If you take offense to what someone else says, than any negative feelings you feel are completely your own fault.

Grow up and learn to control your emotions like an adult person, instead of forcing everyone else to shut up just to please you...

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

*snip*

Alright where to begin..

It's not really about letting words hurt you that's the problem, it's when a hate group tries to promote ignorant hatred against a group of people with absolutely no basis in fact.

It's not words that get to "me" (I really hope you weren't talking down to me with the last line of your rant) but I'll use me for now. I'm not saying that it's about forcing everyone else to shut up just to please me, I'm saying that people hide behind the First Amendment so they can show their hatred and ignorance for a group of people.

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

Gah double post sorry

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

*snip*

Alright where to begin..

It's not really about letting words hurt you that's the problem, it's when a hate group tries to promote ignorant hatred against a group of people with absolutely no basis in fact.

It's not words that get to "me" (I really hope you weren't talking down to me with the last line of your rant) but I'll use me for now. I'm not saying that it's about forcing everyone else to shut up just to please me, I'm saying that people hide behind the First Amendment so they can show their hatred and ignorance for a group of people.

So what you're saying is that it's not really the words that you have anything against, but the opinions behind the words?

Perhaps a "thought police" á la 1984 should become a reality? Some thoughts and opinions should just be forbidden for anyone to have, is that what you're saying?

Personally, I find that kind of reasoning to be bullshit. Arrest and sentence people who do REAL TANGIBLE DAMAGE to other people instead of bickering about what opinions and words that should be voiced or not. Opinions are like assholes anyway, everybody's got one and they all stink.

So let the bigots and racists voice their opinions if they wish, it only makes it a lot more easier for us intelligent people to pop their arguments like they were pimples...

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Freedom of speech is only valid until it threatens public safety or well being. After that, the person is a danger to society and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The problem is where that line is.

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

*snip again*

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I support a totalitarian state of government in the USA. I'm so happy you were able to put into words that which I apparently couldn't before.

I'm saying (yet again) that those who hold rallies inciting violence and promoting hatred against a specific group of people shouldn't be given a free pass by our government to do so. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was mostly talking about rallies that groups like the KKK are allowed to hold, and are covered under the first amendment.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I'm saying (yet again) that those who hold rallies inciting violence and promoting hatred against a specific group of people shouldn't be given a free pass by our government to do so. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was mostly talking about rallies that groups like the KKK are allowed to hold, and are covered under the first amendment.

But why?

Can you point out any specific difference other than the "hate opinions", between a KKK rally and a standard political protest rally? Why should one be permitted while the other should be hindered, merely because some of the opinions in one aren't as popular as the other?

If said rally spirals out of control and clan members are using real physical force, then of course they should be stopped. But for marching and saying their piece? Puh-lease!

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

I'm saying (yet again) that those who hold rallies inciting violence and promoting hatred against a specific group of people shouldn't be given a free pass by our government to do so. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was mostly talking about rallies that groups like the KKK are allowed to hold, and are covered under the first amendment.

But why?

Can you point out any specific difference other than the "hate opinions", between a KKK rally and a standard political protest rally? Why should one be permitted why the other should be hindered, merely because some of the opinions in one aren't as popular as the other.

If said rally spirals out of control and clan members are using real physical force, then of course they should be stopped. But for marching and saying their piece? Puh-lease!

I'm going to leave this one be, it's running in circles and I really don't feel like getting into an online argument any more than I have. I'm bowing out because neither of us will change our views on this

 

[BehattedWanderer]

At times, yes. Though, I get the distinct feeling that some of that will change in the coming times, what with how many new policies concerning National Security have arisen lately. That if the executive branch imprisons a reporter for not revealing their sources if a subject deemed hazardous to the nation's security comes up, and then can legally not tell the judge imprisoning him that matter of security, or how it potentially violates security, and that there is nothing a judge can do except follow up with a sentence for the reporter--yeah, I think we're gonna see some interesting times ahead, some that might even directly violate the first amendment.

 

[Berethond]

At times, yes. Though, I get the distinct feeling that some of that will change in the coming times, what with how many new policies concerning National Security have arisen lately. That if the executive branch imprisons a reporter for not revealing their sources if a subject deemed hazardous to the nation's security comes up, and then can legally not tell the judge imprisoning him that matter of security, or how it potentially violates security, and that there is nothing a judge can do except follow up with a sentence for the reporter--yeah, I think we're gonna see some interesting times ahead, some that might even directly violate the first amendment.

I'll be the first to revolt.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

At times, yes. Though, I get the distinct feeling that some of that will change in the coming times, what with how many new policies concerning National Security have arisen lately. That if the executive branch imprisons a reporter for not revealing their sources if a subject deemed hazardous to the nation's security comes up, and then can legally not tell the judge imprisoning him that matter of security, or how it potentially violates security, and that there is nothing a judge can do except follow up with a sentence for the reporter--yeah, I think we're gonna see some interesting times ahead, some that might even directly violate the first amendment.

I'll be the first to revolt.

I'll join you. Though, the supreme court is also calling up the wording of the second amendment [the whole bit about only for the purposes of forming a militia should arms possession and use not be infringed upon]. At current they are in favor of saying that the 2nd protects non-militia use, as well, but it's a 5-4 split, and while three are solidly in favor of allowing it, two are fence-riders and might change their mind. And they're looking at it for every state, which would require nationwide gun law changes if it passes.

So, we've got two amendments coming into question in the near future...this is gonna be interesting to watch.

 

[Berethond]

At times, yes. Though, I get the distinct feeling that some of that will change in the coming times, what with how many new policies concerning National Security have arisen lately. That if the executive branch imprisons a reporter for not revealing their sources if a subject deemed hazardous to the nation's security comes up, and then can legally not tell the judge imprisoning him that matter of security, or how it potentially violates security, and that there is nothing a judge can do except follow up with a sentence for the reporter--yeah, I think we're gonna see some interesting times ahead, some that might even directly violate the first amendment.

I'll be the first to revolt.

I'll join you. Though, the supreme court is also calling up the wording of the second amendment [the whole bit about only for the purposes of forming a militia should arms possession and use not be infringed upon]. At current they are in favor of saying that the 2nd protects non-militia use, as well, but it's a 5-4 split, and while three are solidly in favor of allowing it, two are fence-riders and might change their mind. And they're looking at it for every state, which would require nationwide gun law changes if it passes.

So, we've got two amendments coming into question in the near future...this is gonna be interesting to watch.

If they rule against guns, I WILL revolt.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

At times, yes. Though, I get the distinct feeling that some of that will change in the coming times, what with how many new policies concerning National Security have arisen lately. That if the executive branch imprisons a reporter for not revealing their sources if a subject deemed hazardous to the nation's security comes up, and then can legally not tell the judge imprisoning him that matter of security, or how it potentially violates security, and that there is nothing a judge can do except follow up with a sentence for the reporter--yeah, I think we're gonna see some interesting times ahead, some that might even directly violate the first amendment.

I'll be the first to revolt.

I'll join you. Though, the supreme court is also calling up the wording of the second amendment [the whole bit about only for the purposes of forming a militia should arms possession and use not be infringed upon]. At current they are in favor of saying that the 2nd protects non-militia use, as well, but it's a 5-4 split, and while three are solidly in favor of allowing it, two are fence-riders and might change their mind. And they're looking at it for every state, which would require nationwide gun law changes if it passes.

So, we've got two amendments coming into question in the near future...this is gonna be interesting to watch.

If they rule against guns, I WILL revolt.

Like I said...I'm right there with you. Along with us would be hundreds of thousands of people who would be filing lawsuits left and right calling it outright unconstitutional. That would be a nationwide revolt, too, none of that pansy tea party crap either.