• 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!

Freedom of Expression

A

AMSHEEN

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2017
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Although freedom of expression is a very valuable necessity for us Americans, to a certain extent, it is limited. In exchange for protection from domestic, or international protection, we forfeit some valuable rights through the social contract. As I do believe in keeping the government in check, if everyone were to use civil disobedience any time that they believed a law was just or unjust, we would live in a world of chaos, and nothing would be accomplished. If the government is not legitimate through the social contract, our rights are useless. We give up CERTAIN rights. For an analogy, if you were at an office, you forfeit the second amendment, and to a certain extent, the first amendment. We have to accept this because in exchange for giving up certain rights, you are being payed.
 
AMSHEEN said:
Although freedom of expression is a very valuable necessity for us Americans, to a certain extent, it is limited. In exchange for protection from domestic, or international protection, we forfeit some valuable rights through the social contract. As I do believe in keeping the government in check, if everyone were to use civil disobedience any time that they believed a law was just or unjust, we would live in a world of chaos, and nothing would be accomplished. If the government is not legitimate through the social contract, our rights are useless. We give up CERTAIN rights. For an analogy, if you were at an office, you forfeit the second amendment, and to a certain extent, the first amendment. We have to accept this because in exchange for giving up certain rights, you are being payed.
Click to expand...

Most Rights are protections of the individual against the government. Not other private individuals. For instance I do not have a right to carry a weapon on someone elses property. But I do have a right to carry that same weapon on/in public spaces or my own property. As the old saying goes, my rights end where yours begin.
 
AMSHEEN said:
Although freedom of expression is a very valuable necessity for us Americans, to a certain extent, it is limited. In exchange for protection from domestic, or international protection, we forfeit some valuable rights through the social contract. As I do believe in keeping the government in check, if everyone were to use civil disobedience any time that they believed a law was just or unjust, we would live in a world of chaos, and nothing would be accomplished. If the government is not legitimate through the social contract, our rights are useless. We give up CERTAIN rights. For an analogy, if you were at an office, you forfeit the second amendment, and to a certain extent, the first amendment. We have to accept this because in exchange for giving up certain rights, you are being payed.
Click to expand...

I'm having a bit of trouble finding your thesis. We do have our rights tempered by protective laws for people and we DO demonstrate every time we find a law or policy to be unfair or just wrong: we get permits and he hit the streets; we're not in chaos because of it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Most Rights are protections of the individual against the government. Not other private individuals. For instance I do not have a right to carry a weapon on someone elses property. But I do have a right to carry that same weapon on/in public spaces or my own property. As the old saying goes, my rights end where yours begin.
Click to expand...

Rights are protections of individuals against other individuals and unfair government policies set in place by groups of individuals. Rights protect people from minority or majority tyranny. YOU do not possess a right to carry a weapon in all public places btw.
 
The OP is nonsense. They clearly do not understand the Bill of Rights.

The 1st amendment says the government cannot prohibit your speech or punish you for your speech. It says nothing about protecting your speech from consequences from non-government sources. In other words, your employer can fire you or otherwise sanction or reprimand you if you say something the employer doesn't like. And, if this were to happen, your 1st amendment rights have in no way been violated.

The 2nd amendment likewise does not prevent private individuals or companies from establishing their own rules regarding firearms. And because of history, the government has prohibited the carrying of firearms in certain places, such as courtrooms and commercial aircraft.
 
This is where Justice Roberts got it right a couple of days ago when he wished we did a better job of teaching civics in the classroom. To add to that, I wish we did a better job of teaching American history as well.

The OP may not have made this post if he understood a bit better how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights work. History tells us that our Revolution started with the suppression of expression and protest with lethal violence. But to be fair, for the 2nd Amendment supporters, they need to learn that the 2nd Amendment was NOT about arming the populace to keep the government in check as the Founders RIF'd the Army to 500 infantry/100 artillery (1783 roughly) and relied solely on militias (the people) for defense...and also used the militia (the people) to quell rebellions like the Whiskey, Fries' and Shay's rebellions over taxation as the nation's standing army was too spread out as well as other protests that happened.
 
Yes, we all know that "freedom of expression" is limited.

Many people have reminded us that the First Amendment only prevents the government from interfering in our free speech. So anyone can go to a park and yell anything s/he wants. Of course, the audience will be limited.

But when it comes to print publications and websites, we are told that they are private and may censor or ban anyone they wish. Therefore, freedom of expression is -- in reality -- limited in the United States, although not to the extent that exists in China or Iran, for example.
 
TheParser said:
Yes, we all know that "freedom of expression" is limited.

Many people have reminded us that the First Amendment only prevents the government from interfering in our free speech. So anyone can go to a park and yell anything s/he wants. Of course, the audience will be limited.

But when it comes to print publications and websites, we are told that they are private and may censor or ban anyone they wish. Therefore, freedom of expression is -- in reality -- limited in the United States, although not to the extent that exists in China or Iran, for example.
Click to expand...

Not only is it restricted there are plenty of people who say they support it but clearly don't. It pans out like this imo , say what I want you to hear or find reasonable and I will respect the right to free speech but say what I don't like and I will seek censorship. This place is rife with such people imho

In the more free societies that we live in the difference is that seeing as we do have a greater degree of free speech/free expression the indoctrination systems and the crushing of the dangers posed by both have to be that much more subtle.

The times they are a changing though and our freedoms , won over many decades at a high price , are being undermined in the name of security. Be sure over the next couple of decades if we carry on along the same path the move towards more authoritarian society will become undeniable imo
 
oneworld2 said:
Be sure over the next couple of decades if we carry on along the same path the move towards more authoritarian society will become undeniable imo
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I think that it is a given that in the coming decades censorship will be widespread.

Americans will have to toe the line -- or else.



Have a nice weekend!
 
Most Americans disagree with the concept of free speech. They are generally opposed to unpopular ideas being expressed. Take this forum, for instance.
 
Jason Warfield said:
This is where Justice Roberts got it right a couple of days ago when he wished we did a better job of teaching civics in the classroom. To add to that, I wish we did a better job of teaching American history as well.

The OP may not have made this post if he understood a bit better how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights work. History tells us that our Revolution started with the suppression of expression and protest with lethal violence. But to be fair, for the 2nd Amendment supporters, they need to learn that the 2nd Amendment was NOT about arming the populace to keep the government in check as the Founders RIF'd the Army to 500 infantry/100 artillery (1783 roughly) and relied solely on militias (the people) for defense...and also used the militia (the people) to quell rebellions like the Whiskey, Fries' and Shay's rebellions over taxation as the nation's standing army was too spread out as well as other protests that happened.
Click to expand...

Your own education on American history could use improvement. While the Continental Congress did indeed reduce the Continental Army to virtually nothing after the Revolution ended in 1783, the brand new United States Congress reinstated the United States Army in September 1789 after President Washington reminded them twice, and the United States Navy and Marine Corps were reinstated a few years later. The United States federal government has never relied on militias for anything.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment came about because the Anti-Federalists feared the Federalists would disarm the people in order to create a politicized standing federal army to rule. The Anti-Federalist's response was to create the Second Amendment and prohibit Congress from violating the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the ideal of a citizens' militia.
 
Glitch said:
Your own education on American history could use improvement. While the Continental Congress did indeed reduce the Continental Army to virtually nothing after the Revolution ended in 1783, the brand new United States Congress reinstated the United States Army in September 1789 after President Washington reminded them twice, and the United States Navy and Marine Corps were reinstated a few years later. The United States federal government has never relied on militias for anything.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment came about because the Anti-Federalists feared the Federalists would disarm the people in order to create a politicized standing federal army to rule. The Anti-Federalist's response was to create the Second Amendment and prohibit Congress from violating the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms in order to preserve the ideal of a citizens' militia.
Click to expand...
There was also a faction that wanted the US to have no standing army. That is because they feared a US standing army would abuse them just as King George's army had abused them. Fortunately, there were smarter people in the room who realized that if the US wanted to remain a free and independent nation, there was going to have to be a standing army, ready to move on a moment's notice to repel any invader. The second amendment was largely to appease that segment, as was the third amendment.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
There was also a faction that wanted the US to have no standing army. That is because they feared a US standing army would abuse them just as King George's army had abused them. Fortunately, there were smarter people in the room who realized that if the US wanted to remain a free and independent nation, there was going to have to be a standing army, ready to move on a moment's notice to repel any invader. The second amendment was largely to appease that segment, as was the third amendment.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment also ensures that States would be allowed to create their own militias, and not be dependent upon a federal militia monopoly as defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution.
 
Glitch said:
The Second Amendment also ensures that States would be allowed to create their own militias, and not be dependent upon a federal militia monopoly as defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
That is known as the National Guard.
 
Lisa said:
That is known as the National Guard.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The National Guard is the federal military, and not the militia.

State militias are also known as a State Defense Force, and are defined under 32 U.S. Code § 109(c):
(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.
Click to expand...
The interesting part about State militias is that they were created based on the Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the US Constitution and not the Second Amendment.
 
Glitch said:
Incorrect. The National Guard is the federal military, and not the militia.

State militias are also known as a State Defense Force, and are defined under 32 U.S. Code § 109(c):

The interesting part about State militias is that they were created based on the Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the US Constitution and not the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
The national guard is under the control of the various governors.

Governor Mike DeWine​

The Governor is the commander in chief of the Ohio National Guard and, as such, has the authority to activate the Ohio National Guard to support and assist local authorities during state emergencies or for homeland defense.
Click to expand...
 
Lisa said:
The national guard is under the control of the various governors.
Click to expand...
Only when given permission by the White House first.

The National Guard are federal troops. Hence the name - NATIONAL Guard.

States are prohibited from having military troops of any kind without Congress' approval by Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Click to expand...

States can, and do, have militias, but they are not military in nature. Alaska's State Defense Force, for example, was last used during the COVID-19 pandemic. They are also involved in search and rescue missions, but nothing military in nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom