Poll: The Defense of 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.

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.

I'll get the pikes (for the severed heads), you can grab the guillotines, and my brother will make us some napalm.

 

[InifniteWit]

People seem to forget that the first amendment protects speech from being censored by the government. It doesn't stop me from throwing you then choking you out. It was created so the government couldn't just silence its critics not so that annoying folks (Michael Moore) can make sensationalist claims and piss others off.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

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.

I'll get the pikes (for the severed heads), you can grab the guillotines, and my brother will make us some napalm.

Haha wow, that's strange--I am a fan of France's National Razor--but how did you know that? Anyways, we're gonna need quite a lot of napalm--best get him started in brewing, just in case the decision is no good. And we'll need provisions.

 

[Berethond]

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.

I'll get the pikes (for the severed heads), you can grab the guillotines, and my brother will make us some napalm.

Haha wow, that's strange--I am a fan of France's National Razor--but how did you know that? Anyways, we're gonna need quite a lot of napalm--best get him started in brewing, just in case the decision is no good. And we'll need provisions.

Everyone loves guillotines.

He will. Maybe he can get his old chem teacher to help.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

yes i do, most people don't understand what freedom of speech means. it does NOT mean you can say what you want, it means there's no restrictions placed on what you say or how you say it

I always took it to mean you can say what ever the fuck you want as long as you deal with the consequences. i.e. they can't arrest you for your words but for your intent and actions (inciting violence call to arms against prez etc.)

nope, read the amendment yourself. it's just stopping the government from stopping you from saying what you want much like the British empire was doing at the time to the people of America, everyone has corrupted what the wishes of the founding fathers were. the first amendment was written in an older version of english that we don't understand or use in this day and age

 

[cobra_ky]

For example the latest facebook poll asking the question to the effect of "Do you want to kill President Obama" is something that should be looked into by the Secret Service. This is abuse of free speech to spread fear and hate and that is what needs to be called out. We as a society shouldn't suppress free speech but we sure as hell better point out those people who support hatred and being incorrect with their speech.

The first amendment protects all speech, including speech that is hateful, inflammatory, and false. the facebook poll should be investigated, because it may represent a threat on the president's life. i rather doubt any chrages will come of it, however.

EDIT: i've just heard that there will be no charges regarding that poll.

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.

didn't the supreme court overturn a ban on handguns in D.C. on 2nd amendment grounds a year or two ago?

 

[Good morning blues]

A recent example of this would be the G-20 protests. They said "We're protected by the first amendment, you CAN'T arrest us!"

ummm.... I'm pretty sure when cops have to show up in full riot gear, and tear gas starts going off. You've overstepped your bounds...like a lot...

That's making the pretty ballsy assumption that the cops showing up in full riot gear and using tear gas was an appropriate response to the activities of the protesters. Maybe it even was in this situation. But all too often in recent years, the cops have moved before it was necessary, and widespread use of agentes provocateurs completely undermines defenses of the police in such situations.

*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...

I'll take this argument up. That is very clearly not what he is saying; what he is saying, and I agree, is that when someone promotes violence against an identifiable group in your society, that should be a crime. Bigots and racists do not give a shit what responses "us intelligent people" have for their opinions. You can't take someone who has spent their entire life in a culture of ignorance and hatred, say "there is no logical basis for your opinion," and expect them to be changed. You can expect people to respond to incitement to violence, as happened in such places as Nazi Germany, Communist China and the USSR, and yes, the American South, where people called for lynchings and other people heeded those calls.

Nobody has the right to tell somebody to commit unlawful violence on someone else. If they are caught doing so, they absolutely should be silenced, because they are actively contributing to the decay of a stable and orderly society.

 

[fudgebo]

Freedom of speech should entail freedom of speech. As long as people don't use physical violence against eachother it is silly to accuse anyone of a crime simply for saying something inflamatory...

including racial comments? Some things you just shoudn't say, regardless of free speech.

 

[DannyBoy451]

What exactly do you mean by hiding behind it? Can you give an example?

A regular columnist with Newsmax, an influential conservative blog, a veteran journalist and a former white House Adviser (to Carter and LBJ strangely enough) basically wrote an article calling for a coup against Obama a couple of days ago.

So long as he's just expressing an oppinion, then there's nothing wrong with it.

So plotting to overthrow the government and commit treason is protected by the freedom of speech?

If you'd actually made the effort to find and read the article he was talking about, then you'd know that the writer was speaking hypothetically about a bloodless coup to make a point.

 

[ygetoff]

On a side note, if anyone knows whether i actually must capitalize the words "First Amendment" then that would be a great thing to learn.

It think that it's a proper noun, and so must be capitalized.

OT: I think that a few people may hide behind it. A friend and I were having a conversation about states making laws against texting while driving, I saying that it is necessary to prevent needless death and injury (not to mention destruction of property), with him saying that it is a restriction of privacy and free speech rights. Given that the First Amendment actually does not give any guarantees on preventing dangerous acts. I can understand protesting things like censoring text messages that may or may not be sent while driving, but hiding behind the First Amendment on something that it does not discuss or even apply to is a bit of a stretch.
My long-winded point is that people need to be educated on what the First Amendment actually says.

 

[SUPERtwinky]

Yes, but to get them, we would have to take necessary protection away from those who deserve it

 

[DannyBoy451]

If you'd actually made the effort to find and read the article he was talking about, then you'd know that the writer was speaking hypothetically about a bloodless coup to make a point.

So committing treason and overthrowing the government is ok so long as it is bloodless?

Committing a coup means overthrowing the people currently in charge, and that's treason regardless of if anyone gets hurt or not.

I really think you should look up the definition of "hypothetically".

 

[BehattedWanderer]

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.

I'll get the pikes (for the severed heads), you can grab the guillotines, and my brother will make us some napalm.

Haha wow, that's strange--I am a fan of France's National Razor--but how did you know that? Anyways, we're gonna need quite a lot of napalm--best get him started in brewing, just in case the decision is no good. And we'll need provisions.

Everyone loves guillotines.

He will. Maybe he can get his old chem teacher to help.

I'll pitch in too--I'm pretty handy at making things go boom or catch fire (sometimes both). Plus, I know how to make a smoke bomb, so that should go down well.

 

[soren7550]

Damn, I saw something in my Government class earlier today that dealt w/ this a bit. (the only part I really remember of today's class is this show we watched about the Fox v. Franken case. Very funny. 'The First Amendment Project', that was what it was called.)

Anyway, I do believe some people try using the First Amendment for crap that's still not right/legal/etc. Take flag burning for example: some say it's part of their freedom of expression to do so. (sorry there pal, there's an amendment that says that's still illegal.)

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

Take flag burning for example: some say it's part of their freedom of expression to do so. (sorry there pal, there's an amendment that says that's still illegal.)

The Supreme Court otherwise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson].

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Take flag burning for example: some say it's part of their freedom of expression to do so. (sorry there pal, there's an amendment that says that's still illegal.)

The Supreme Court otherwise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson].

also i do believe it is one of the army regulations said that they must burn their flag when it becomes not usable, so they're also breaking the law if that's true

 

[Skeleon]

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?

Because people are stupid and act on words of hate, resulting in lynch-mobs and similar.
There's a difference between "I hate blacks" and "blacks are worthless scum that must be purged from this country with petrol and fire!" because while the idea might be the same, the results can differ quite a lot.
For example, it is forbidden in Germany to wear the swastika unless in an antifa-way (for example, in a trash can or broken by a fist). This policy I fully agree with considering the aggression and discriminatory nature of Neo-Nazis and the danger they pose to democracy.
I don't believe in absolutes. I don't believe in liberty at any price or freedom of speech at any risk. There are limits to our freedoms unless we want to descend into anarchy and violence.
Unless we change human nature, we will never be able to live completely freely and peacefully.
But I don't want to give up on our freedoms, either. I believe in a balance of freedom and regulation.