• 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!

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee freedom of speech in a meaningful way?

Jane said:
:twocents: That's why I feel voting should be mandatory, at least in federal elections, with failure to do resulting in a small fine.
Click to expand...

Yes, and while we're at it, we should require that every citizen carries a gun on their person at all times. Failure to do so resulting in a small fine.
 
Gaea said:
Yes, and while we're at it, we should require that every citizen carries a gun on their person at all times. Failure to do so resulting in a small fine.
Click to expand...

The government has ICBM's, so shouldn't we should have the right to bear the same armament? After all, it's the best protection of freedom of speech. Why stop there? Put an ICBM in every home. :shock:
 
Celebrity said:
Hold it right there. I said non-partisan because the US government is non-partisan. The administration on the other hand, is partisan and we sometimes arrange for policies that lack bi-partisan support (executive order, for example). But tax dollars are public funding. The only political groups with the power to participate will be the ones with access to an internet browser and a certain amount of processing speed.



If you vote for the candidate who doesn't get a place at the debate, is that freedom of expression?

Your vote is your voice, and when 8% of voters choose to voice their opinion for a candidate who is silenced, freedom of speech is mitigated. Limiting speech in a certain venue is fine. When a single venue is awarded significantly more power than any other existing venue, we might call that a monopoly. The political process is that venue, and right now, it appears that it's being torn apart within the parties.

Do prisoners have freedom of speech? Yes, and the Virginia Felons Voter Association recently increased the power to include the right to vote for people who were convicted on felony charges.
The mainstream media is where free speech most publicly takes place, and it's a business. The mainstream media will therefore align itself with profitable speech, such as candidates which favor media coverage. The political process and media coverage work hand in hand, and every time the media throws a bone to some peasant, they get 15 minutes of fame and nothing happens.

Why not fund a forum in order to give the rest of the people an opportunity to speak freely, not on the basis of fame or fortune, but as a matter of principle? Think of the POTUS town hall meetings which have gained so much popularity as a seat of political power for those who get a chance to speak to the President. We can do the same thing, and we the people deserve adequate funding from a resource which we create.
Click to expand...

Only because Virginia has a piece of **** governor that supports this.
 
Gaea said:
Yes, and while we're at it, we should require that every citizen carries a gun on their person at all times. Failure to do so resulting in a small fine.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any country which considers carrying a gun to be a civic duty. Can you name some?
 
Jane said:
I'm not aware of any country which considers carrying a gun to be a civic duty. Can you name some?
Click to expand...

I cannot.

But why do you want people to be mandated by law to vote? It's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority of citizens aren't informed enough to vote intelligently.
 
Gaea said:
I cannot.

But why do you want people to be mandated by law to vote? It's pretty obvious that the overwhelming majority of citizens aren't informed enough to vote intelligently.
Click to expand...
I think it should be a civic responsibility. As our elections go, so goes our nation. I agree that many are uninformed; just read these forums.;) I think having to vote might have an educational effect on our citizens.
 
Jane said:
I think it should be a civic responsibility. As our elections go, so goes our nation. I agree that many are uninformed; just read these forums.;) I think having to vote might have an educational effect on our citizens.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want penises and boobs drawn on the ballot go ahead and force me to vote. :lol:
 
I vote for a ginger. Any ginger councilman, representative, senator, secretary of state or president will do.
 
Jane said:
I'm not aware of any country which considers carrying a gun to be a civic duty. Can you name some?
Click to expand...

There are two towns in the US that require gun ownership by law.....with a bunch of exceptions as it make it a moot point, but it is still on the books.
 
Henrin said:
Well, if you want penises and boobs drawn on the ballot go ahead and force me to vote. :lol:
Click to expand...

I want to see how you manage that with electronic voting booths!
 
Celebrity said:
I vote for a ginger. Any ginger councilman, representative, senator, secretary of state or president will do.
Click to expand...

I had a dear friend with the same, um, proclivity (?). Before she permanently switched over to the lesbian side, she just had to sleep with some ginger dude she knew. A good time was had by all.
 
Patrickt said:
"The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right."

No, it doesn't. The Constitution guarantees no such thing.

And, directly to the point of your suggestion for a new tax that would be used to give some political groups, but not others, a public forum, well, that might well be unconstitutional. You have a voice on this forum. You can collect money or even fund your own "third-party only" forum. You can without doubt promote Ms. Stein's campaign or Gov. Johnson's campaign here. You can't tax me to pay for it, though. Wouldn't Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton be excited by the idea that the King, or Queen, could levy a tax to pay for their speeches?

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

Now, taking out the part that pertains to free speech for those who don't actually read the Constitution we get, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." That's it. Of course, since the Constitution was written to protect us from the government the government has been violating that amendment almost since our founding. But, it really is quite clear.

But, I should touch on what it doesn't say. It doesn't say you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, or wherever you want. Trust me, if you say the wrong thing you can get fired, hear the lock on your bedroom door click shut, see your name dropped from the annual neighborhood block party, or find yourself sitting alone in the cafeteria. No there is no Constitutional protection for people like Donald Trump from other Americans. That's why, as a liberal, he wants stricter laws against free speech.

The government has decided that free speech can be abridged but even ignoring that, the Constitution does not guarantee that you can seize the podium and give a speech on private property. The government protects those who storm the podium to prevent people they disagree with from speaking and the government is wrong in doing that.

A racist group donated written material about their cause to our local library. They were thanked and their material was put in a restricted section for research purposes. They objected. Too bad. There is no guarantee the government will promote you speech either.
Click to expand...

If I were to respond to the OP, it would have been something like this: ^^^^^ Well said.

I will only add...about that proposed tax: See my sig. "-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein"
 
Jane said:
I had a dear friend with the same, um, proclivity (?). Before she permanently switched over to the lesbian side, she just had to sleep with some ginger dude she knew. A good time was had by all.
Click to expand...

I take back my vote for gingers. That's just weird.
 
jet57 said:
Your "freedom of expression" comment is convoluted and what makes NPR those agencies partisan and can you prove your assertion?
Click to expand...

NPR demonstrates its partisan nature daily. The IRS has been found to be partisan and the people pushing their agenda were installed by this administration. Some, such as the DOJ, FCC, and NLRB were installed by this administration. Can I prove it? Probably not to everyone's satisfaction. There are still people who consider MSNBC and the NYT to be unbiased and fair.

And, the 1st Amendment says the government cannot pass laws restricting your free speech. It does not say they have to in any way fund your free speech.
 
Mycroft said:
If I were to respond to the OP, it would have been something like this: ^^^^^ Well said.

I will only add...about that proposed tax: See my sig. "-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein"
Click to expand...

I agree about trusting people whose only guiding principle involves getting your money in their pocket either through taxes, pay for play, or casinos.
 
Celebrity said:
The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely?
Click to expand...

Given that many Speech Offenders can be Blacklisted, the First Amendment is very incomplete.
 
SCitizen said:
Given that many Speech Offenders can be Blacklisted, the First Amendment is very incomplete.
Click to expand...

Please expand on this. I believe that you may have a conceptual error in the works, but can't be sure.
 
SCitizen said:
Given that many Speech Offenders can be Blacklisted, the First Amendment is very incomplete.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects us from the government. It does not protect us from our boss, our spouse, our neighbors, or our friends and I don't think it should.
 
maquiscat said:
Please expand on this. I believe that you may have a conceptual error in the works, but can't be sure.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the Speech Offender from penalty by US Government. No protection of the Speech Offender from non-Government agents exist.
 
Patrickt said:
The First Amendment protects us from the government. It does not protect us from our boss, our spouse, our neighbors, or our friends and I don't think it should.
Click to expand...

Sadly it can not.
 
SCitizen said:
Sadly it can not.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's sad. My free speech allows me to condemn a spouse or a neighbor or a boss or a friend for things they say. There is a segment of our society that wants to squelch speech and they find free speech intolerable. They benefit from having Americans afraid to speak to each other.
 
Freedom of speech leads people to take offense to free speech, and then take actions on behalf of themselves or others. When the actions that they take are violent or offensive, they may commit a crime. But enough people do not respect the right to free speech that they drag others down with them into a quarrel. Because not everyone has a body camera, dashcam, etc., and not everyone wears a recording device at all times, inappropriate behavior goes undocumented. Just because our spouses, neighbors, bosses and friends can condemn us for what speech they deem to be inappropriate does not justify actions which condemn individuals. These actions may include, but are not limited to, denying employment, imprisonment, and assault.

I am quite familiar with this. I've been online long enough to know that threats and slander are too common and often unabashed and unmoderated. But taking steps to limit someone's capacity to live as outlined in the Declaration of Independence due to their speech is wholly inappropriate. I believe that actions taken against individuals who speak freely permit actions in proportion to the unjustified initial action. In other words, if someone says something you don't like, and you spit in their face, that wrongdoing does not make you "even." If you spit in someone's face, then do not expect them to not spit back at you, and if they don't it is because they are being courteous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom