0
dmcoco84

It is Time to Repeal the First Amendment [on topic]

Recommended Posts

I appreciate another use of this experimental tag.

Frankly, I think the history shows how much we rely on the 1st, even in the modern era (70s on) of free speech. Flag burning dominated the 80s/90s, the abortion battle continued in the 90s, and Citizens United is incredibly recent, addressing the crime of McCain-Feingold.

Contrast that with Europe which enjoys fairly free speech, but the government can still censor, and wacky religions can be defined as illegal cults.** I think the 1st has a little more pull.

** there still are some holes - particularly around journalists protecting sources. But that wouldn't get better if the amendment was missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what happens if you don't have freedom of speech.

http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-qatar-poet-insulting-emir-20121129,0,3046829.story

Our country wasn't just founded on free speech, it's the fundamental human right that made it possible (that and a very big ocean helping to separate us from the consequences). But without freedom of speech, it's a bit difficult to tell King George to go stuff himself.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Depends on "free." Plenty are conent with the limits we have now and want more limits on it.

I'm pretty sure some speech would be free. But seditious speech would be bad news (it is now, even).



Yes, but it would be even more than that - because then it would be governed not by the Constitution, but by individual state (and possibly even municipal) laws. And that would be comparatively bad.

By way of illustration: Many "Western democratic" countries have laws making, for example, the following criminal offenses, subject to prosecution and prison:
- blasphemy
- speaking disrespectfully to a police officer
- defaming another person
- inflaming or insulting other people's ethnic or religious sensitivities
- wearing religion-based garments that conceal one's face
- merely denying the occurrence of certain historical events; for example, the Holocaust. (Imagine if in the US you could be jailed for denying the existence of slavery, or for calling the Civil War "the war of northern aggression", rather than "the war of in-bred Southern treason".)

The US's First Amendment, in theory - and, thankfully, often in practice! - prevents such laws from being passed or surviving.

I don't think Obama or Bill Clinton are goat-fuckers*, but I'd find it abhorrent if the right-wing, fascist, racist, Neanderthal motherfuckers in here (ok, and elsewhere) could be prosecuted for calling them that.


(*In fairness, I'm not entirely sure Bill hasn't fucked at least 1 or 2 goats in his lifetime. God, I love that man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Depends on "free." Plenty are conent with the limits we have now and want more limits on it.

I'm pretty sure some speech would be free. But seditious speech would be bad news (it is now, even).



Yes, but it would be even more than that - because then it would be governed not by the Constitution, but by individual state (and possibly even municipal) laws. And that would be comparatively bad.

By way of illustration: Many "Western democratic" countries have laws making, for example, the following criminal offenses, subject to prosecution and prison:
- blasphemy
- speaking disrespectfully to a police officer
- defaming another person
- inflaming or insulting other people's ethnic or religious sensitivities
- wearing religion-based garments that conceal one's face
- merely denying the occurrence of certain historical events; for example, the Holocaust. (Imagine if in the US you could be jailed for denying the existence of slavery, or for calling the Civil War "the war of northern aggression", rather than "the war of in-bred Southern treason".)

The US's First Amendment, in theory - and, thankfully, often in practice! - prevents such laws from being passed or surviving.

I don't think Obama or Bill Clinton are goat-fuckers*, but I'd find it abhorrent if the right-wing, fascist, racist, Neanderthal motherfuckers in here (ok, and elsewhere) could be prosecuted for calling them that.


(*In fairness, I'm not entirely sure Bill hasn't fucked at least 1 or 2 goats in his lifetime. God, I love that man.)



Holy Crap! Standing by to see who feeds the troll. :D I will never have to apologize again.;)
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the First Amendment were repealed, would American Citizens still have Freedom of Speech?

Why... or Why Not?


Speech (and Press) Only [on topic]



I am not a lawyer, only a social observer. I believe we are losing freedom of speech. I rant here because in reality I am very careful what I say. I am very careful what I reveal in this forum. I do not trust.

Could I expect a good defense from Andy9o8 on a First Amendment charge? Maybe yes but, in my mind, with my present understanding, maybe no. How would I be assured that I would not be set up for a great fall?

Have you ever worked in an organization that created a paper trail or assigned an impossible task just for the purpose of firing someone? I have.

We are starting to learn of more and more instances of someone losing their job for disparaging Emails and Facebook postings regarding their organization or boss.

America is still better than the other nations. We are losing that status.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Have you ever worked in an organization that created a paper trail or assigned an impossible task just for the purpose of firing someone? I have.

I have, too, but I think this reflects more on the litigious nature of our society. It's immediately justifiable to fire someone for not completing a task (or "time card fraud," one of the government contractor's favorites). It's much more expensive to justify (i.e. you might have to go to court) firing someone for incompetence.

Quote

We are starting to learn of more and more instances of someone losing their job for disparaging Emails and Facebook postings regarding their organization or boss.

Again, I think this reflects the impact of technology on our society. Before, "private" meant what you talked about among your friends, whom you trusted. We just haven't internalized yet that nothing electronic is really private -- that has to remain in-person.

Saying something unacceptable about your boss and having it get back to them has pretty much always been cause for firing or discipline. It's just that now people leave electronic evidence.

I think that freedom of speech (no matter how we define it) would remain an important concept. However, as Andy mentions, it would morph from place to place. Some people might see that as good -- in Vegas, Saturday morning cartoons might include porn, and in some rural Tennessee communities, it might go back to where the only TV on Sunday mornings was church services and Davey and Goliath.

That piecemeal approach would make those communities comfortable for the people who live there, but exceedingly difficult to navigate for the ones passing through, or the ones interacting with it electronically.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It merely implies freedom from government-induced consequences. Private bodies are not held to government controls, nor should they be. Our constitution limits the government*; it is not meant to prohibit or require action by private parties.

* - At least it was intended that way. Lately it seems to be ignored more than applied.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


We are starting to learn of more and more instances of someone losing their job for disparaging Emails and Facebook postings regarding their organization or boss.



Sorry Ron - this has nothing to do with freedom of speech in the first amendment sense. If I go up to my boss and call them an asshole to their face, then I can rightly expect to get fired. A facebook posting is no different. There are company codes of conduct and so on that refer to this type of situation.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't categorize anything that has been posted in response so far, to be, off topic... however, the question at hand is not being addressed.


There are two statements that are correct:

Quote

Quade:

"This is what happens if you don't have freedom of speech."

Very True.



Quote

Kennedy:

"Our constitution limits the government*; it is not meant to prohibit or require action by private parties."

Very True.




This question is easily answered without discussing, "hate speech", blasphemy, "fire in a theater", and all the rest of that jazz...

Freedom of Speech, for the purpose of Lawrockets quotes, can be defined as: what the Men of the Convention stated were the (speech) rights of an Englishman.


So... if the First Amendment were repealed, today, unanimously, do I still have the freedom to call G.H.W Bush a Douche Bag Cock Sucker for signing the U.N. Agenda 21?

Do I still have the freedom to call Obama an Antisemitic Douche Bag.

If you believe I do... Why?

If you believe I do not... Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the 1st Amendment were to be repealed, whether or not it was illegal to call either GWB or BHO a douchebag would be up to the local authorities, unless the federal authorities had made it illegal.

The force of precedent (which is separate from teh 1st Amendment, but still strong in the US) would lead it to be the default until changed by some other authority.

Regardless of legality, you can always call anyone you want to a douchebag -- it's all in who hears you.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the 1st Amendment were to be repealed, whether or not it was illegal to call either GWB or BHO a douchebag would be up to the local authorities, unless the federal authorities had made it illegal.

The force of precedent (which is separate from teh 1st Amendment, but still strong in the US) would lead it to be the default until changed by some other authority.

Regardless of legality, you can always call anyone you want to a douchebag -- it's all in who hears you.

Wendy P.




Hot or Cold...

Very Cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the 1st Amendment were to be repealed, whether or not it was illegal to call either GWB or BHO a douchebag would be up to the local authorities, unless the federal authorities had made it illegal.

At one time the State of Georgia passed a law making it illegal to use "obscene speech" to describe politicians, but it was ruled unconstitutional. That didn't stop an Atlanta cop from ticketing a woman for having a "F*CK BUSH" bumper sticker on her car. The ticket was dismissed eventually, but she was still stuck with legal fees. I have no doubt but that the 1st amendment is all that stands in the way of self-important politicians legislating away any speech they find threatening.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Notes

Quote

I have no doubt but that the 1st amendment is all that stands in the way of self-important politicians legislating away any speech they find threatening.



That is a good comment, but it is more so significant, after, the question at hand is answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My father was a college professor; he loved to play this game -- the "guess what I'm thinking, and the prize is that I'll tell you you were right" game. I hate that game.

Why don't you give us your opinion, since you obviously have one?

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hot or Cold...

Very Cold.

Considering your past posting history, I'm guessing that the point you are trying to make (in your inimitably indirect style) is that fundamental rights come from God, and so they can't be taken away by any human action. Do I win a cookie?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I wouldn't categorize anything that has been posted in response so far, to be, off topic... however, the question at hand is not being addressed.


Just to let you know, I'm stealing that. I've waited two years for a sig line, and that's it. ;)
lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My father was a college professor; he loved to play this game -- the "guess what I'm thinking, and the prize is that I'll tell you you were right" game. I hate that game.

Why don't you give us your opinion, since you obviously have one?

Wendy P.




Wow... I would have hating having your dad as a professor if that's how he taught. And I'm not going to tell you to were right, because what you wrote is incorrect.

What I am going to post is not going to be my opinion... and I'm not playing any games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I wouldn't categorize anything that has been posted in response so far, to be, off topic... however, the question at hand is not being addressed.


Just to let you know, I'm stealing that. I've waited two years for a sig line, and that's it. ;)



Interesting...

Are those two Dodge Vipers in your profile pic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


I wouldn't categorize anything that has been posted in response so far, to be, off topic... however, the question at hand is not being addressed.


Just to let you know, I'm stealing that. I've waited two years for a sig line, and that's it. ;)



Interesting...

Are those two Dodge Vipers in your profile pic?



This is completely off topic. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hot or Cold...

Very Cold.

Considering your past posting history, I'm guessing that the point you are trying to make (in your inimitably indirect style) is that fundamental rights come from God, and so they can't be taken away by any human action. Do I win a cookie?

Don



No cookie, yet...


And I AM hoping to hear from Jakee... before I post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A smart ruler would not allow the 1st to be repealed. Just continue its incremental erosion, whether by legislation, regulation, decree or fatwa. The masses are then fooled into thinking the 1st Amendment (and by extension, the republic) is still relevant. But to answer the question ...no ... because the American concept of "citizenship" would cease to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So... if the First Amendment were repealed, today, unanimously, do I still have the freedom to call G.H.W Bush a Douche Bag Cock Sucker for signing the U.N. Agenda 21? Do I still have the freedom to call Obama an Antisemitic Douche Bag. If you believe I do... Why? If you believe I do not... Why?



Conceptually; yes. For all practical purposes; no.

What you're asking is similar to, "Do I have a right to life if placed in a locked cage with tigers?"

Without formalized freedom of speech, pretty much no other "right" matters since you wouldn't even be able to argue the point. Seriously. Try talking the tigers into not eating you.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0