• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it time to start talking about repealing the First Amendment?

Is it time to start talking about repealing the 1st Amendment?

  • Total voters
    33
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...
that is so bizarre it's ...I can't think of words..do you want tme to clear it with the US Dept of Speech before I do so?

We can't be 100% safe. we can go after inflammatory speech, but not "registering it" first
 
annata said:
that is so bizarre it's ...I can't think of words..do you want tme to clear it with the US Dept of Speech before I do so?

We can't be 100% safe. we can go after inflammatory speech, but not "registering it" first
Click to expand...

I guess you aren't seeing what I thought was sarcasm as X was comparing free speech with say the 2nd Amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you aren't seeing what I thought was sarcasm as X was comparing free speech with say the 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...
I missed that. apparently this thread is about some other thread? I just noticed the OP and commented on that -
i'm reading through the rest now.

Free speech is regulated, but to do so by prior submission/clearence to any gov't agency is bizarre.

PS. there should be some notation of sarcasm..I meani had though this thread an esoteric, but valid attempt at discussion
 
I already made my views quite clear about this earlier, but I wanted to add one more thing.

X-Factor, is there any recent incident that's spurring your question? There's clearly recent reasons why the 2nd Amendment is under review, or at least the ease with which people can obtain guns.

The reason I ask is that such a review would require precedent, which you seem to be lacking.
 
annata said:
I missed that. apparently this thread is about some other thread? I just noticed the OP and commented on that -
i'm reading through the rest now.

Free speech is regulated, but to do so by prior submission/clearence to any gov't agency is bizarre.

PS. there should be some notation of sarcasm..I meani had though this thread an esoteric, but valid attempt at discussion
Click to expand...

No problem, I have the advantage of having seen thousands of his posts and know his views
 
annata said:
that is so bizarre it's ...I can't think of words..do you want tme to clear it with the US Dept of Speech before I do so?

We can't be 100% safe. we can go after inflammatory speech, but not "registering it" first
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. should the 1st amendment only apply to those who can pass the federal background check required to buy a firearm? What about the right to trial by jury? Restrictions against cruel and unusual punishment? I think we could cut away quite a bit of red tape if we restricted all constitutional rights the way we restrict the 2nd amendment. For example, if you want to express your opinion against the government at a protest, you must first pass a government background check. no room for abuse of power there. nope.

for the children, of course.
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
That's an interesting point. should the 1st amendment only apply to those who can pass the federal background check required to buy a firearm? What about the right to trial by jury? Restrictions against cruel and unusual punishment? I think we could cut away quite a bit of red tape if we restricted all constitutional rights the way we restrict the 2nd amendment. For example, if you want to express your opinion against the government at a protest, you must first pass a government background check. no room for abuse of power there. nope.

for the children, of course.
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
tech30528 said:
Of course.
Click to expand...

Evil+Genius+Racoon.jpg
 
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...

No, it makes no sense. As my mother said "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me". Speech is simply speech. If someone justifies physical violence because of some words and letters strung together than it is entirely on that person who committed the physical violence. History is full of examples of "hate speech" that turned out to be true and righteous. Society advances when customs are challenged, despite some thinking of those challenges are "hateful".
 
Eric7216 said:
No, it makes no sense. As my mother said "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me". Speech is simply speech. If someone justifies physical violence because of some words and letters strung together than it is entirely on that person who committed the physical violence. History is full of examples of "hate speech" that turned out to be true and righteous. Society advances when customs are challenged, despite some thinking of those challenges are "hateful".
Click to expand...

so if say some piss ant in the military who is upset for some reason leaks troop movements to the enemy and a bunch of our guys get killed, that didn't hurt anyone? of if some corrupt employee of a law enforcement agency tells Guido and Willy that the feds are going to execute an arrest warrant at 10Pm at their business and those mopes are waiting with a bunch of armed toughs and the officers serving the warrant are shot down, no one was hurt?
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
i think it's about time to deport anyone who wants to change any of the first 10 amendments in the US constitution. we won't infringe their rights, we'll just send them off to greener pastures better suited to them and their opinions.
Click to expand...

Mexico maybe. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. And a higher gun death rate than the US. They would have to go thru immigration though. Crossing the border in to Mexico illegally is punishable by 100 days of minimum wage labor and deportation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
 
Eric7216 said:
No, it makes no sense. As my mother said "sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me". Speech is simply speech. If someone justifies physical violence because of some words and letters strung together than it is entirely on that person who committed the physical violence. History is full of examples of "hate speech" that turned out to be true and righteous. Society advances when customs are challenged, despite some thinking of those challenges are "hateful".
Click to expand...

Tell that to the film maker Hillary and friends blamed for Benghazi. After Hillary told the parents of one of the Marines that they would arrest and prosecute the film maker, he was jailed and served a year for a "probation violation".
 
TurtleDude said:
so if say some piss ant in the military who is upset for some reason leaks troop movements to the enemy and a bunch of our guys get killed, that didn't hurt anyone? of if some corrupt employee of a law enforcement agency tells Guido and Willy that the feds are going to execute an arrest warrant at 10Pm at their business and those mopes are waiting with a bunch of armed toughs and the officers serving the warrant are shot down, no one was hurt?
Click to expand...

Valid points and I don't disagree. The original question seemed to have a more universal application. I have no problem with restrictions on freedom of speech WHEN one is in a employed in a position that has access to classified or confidential information and there are obvious restriction on release of that information.
 
Ban or "edit" Freedom of Speech in the US and I will resort to force and violence to get it back. You have no right to modify the first amendment. Another "Hate Speech" propagation is the root of all sorts of political instability.
 
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...
When the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment they had manual printing presses in mind. Not the internet.
 
Faciste-Combatt said:
Ban or "edit" Freedom of Speech in the US and I will resort to force and violence to get it back. You have no right to modify the first amendment. Another "Hate Speech" propagation is the root of all sorts of political instability.
Click to expand...

Did you know the constitution actually tells just how to change the first amendment? Why do you hate the constitution?
 
X Factor said:
This is inspired by another thread in this same section. The First Amendment is clearly a danger to our safety here in the US. When people are just recklessly allowed to say what they want, it can get pretty messy, maybe even inspiring violence. Beyond that, what is the one thing that many of the recent mass killers have in common? They want fame and notoriety which they are immediately given by our free press thus inspiring others to do the same - placing the blame for these actions (and their results) squarely on the First Amendment (and it's advocates). Ok, so maybe repealing the First is a little too much but I think it's clear that we need to start advocating reasonable restrictions on the things people can say. Maybe do background checks before someone is allowed to speak in public, and registering the content of speech with the government prior to it being spoken. The only way we can be truly safe is to trust only our government with free speech, all other speech needs to be strictly monitored and controlled. Makes sense, right?
Click to expand...

Oh Jeez...you want to curtail free speech? To try and stop serial killers from gaining fame? Oh come on now?

I want no part of a nation that removes the right of free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom