First Amendment; What's yor take on it?

[Frigidweirdo]

Outlawing human sacrifice is a pretty obvious one that is totally reasonable. I think stopping people from stirring up genocidal movements is another

Well, there's an issue, for example, with assisted suicide and the like. Is it in the government's interests to make such a decision?

With human sacrifice potentially there are more issues because people could be compelled to make a human sacrifice, in which case they could legitimately outlaw it.

Hate speech is actually one which is much easier. The whole "clear and present danger" is the precedent in the US, but other countries take that much less. For example Jo Brand in the UK making a joke about acid in the face of politicians. Looks like she won't get prosecuted, personally I'd have made an example, but possibly they didn't want to because by doing so it makes the whole think even more widely known.

 

[Thoreau72]

What part of "A preamble is nothing more than a summary of the following document" were you not able to comprehend? It is exactly the same thing as your so-called Webster definition. A preamble still means nothing legally. If you are going to cite the US Constitution cite a specific Article, Section, and Clause or an Amendment, not a meaningless summary of the document.

Everyone who has even a basic comprehension of the law knows to ignore preambles because they have no legal meaning whatsoever. Obviously that excludes you.

Oh I comprehended every single word of it, just as I comprehended Bill Clinton when he parsed the meaning of "is". Both statements are pure horse manure.

I understand that it has no legal standing. Yes boss, I've known that for decades. But it is an informative part of the document, and is something that threatens your twisted world view that demands fascism and excludes anything at all for We The People.

Thanks Glitch, you're one of those. :doh

 

[SmartCat]

The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.

What kind of criticism of Trump would you punish? How would you punish it? What about people who said that President Obama was a Muslim who was born in Kenya and who hated white people? Should they have been allowed to do that?

 

[SmartCat]

The free market determines it. The reason the Mainstream Media is considered "left leaning" is because the majority of Americans are "left leaning." (which, if we're being honest, means it's the new "center.") The MSM simply reflects public opinion. The conservative canard that the MSM has a leftist agenda is false. The MSM's only agenda is to make money. The MSM in aggregate is always dead center of partisanship and represents the average opinion of the majority of Americans.

The mainstream media is reluctant to report news that portrays blacks and homosexuals unfavorably. Many Americans think the mainstream media reports an America that differs from the one they experience in their lives. This has created a market for people like Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

You make good points, but I would argue that person broadcasting to millions with the hope of finding one person with whom he resonates may also be working towards the good of society. Not every one "living in the wilderness" is evil or dangerous. Nor does mass agreement equal eternal and everlasting truth.

All you have to do is listen to the one with the microphone. Are they calling for the end of cancer? Are they encouraging their fellow citizens to clean up their neighborhoods and take pride in their communities?

Or, are they spewing hate? Calling for violence against a particular group or individual? Granted, most people will not act on this, but all you have to do is reach one, one unhinged individual who will shoot up a synagogue or church. One individual who will commit mayhem in a school or a news room. One person willing to set off a pipe bomb on a crowded street. When you have an audience that numbers in the millions, you can find that one fairly easy.

 

[SmartCat]

Amendment I

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.

----------

When interpreting the United States Constitution I favor a literal and minimal interpretation, deferring to public opinion as revealed in election results. I dislike the Supreme Court as an institution. I particularly dislike it when the Supreme Court overturns popular laws that have been in effect for a long time.

For me the Establishment Clause simply means that Congress shall not create an established church, similar to the Church of England. It does not mean that there should not be prayer and Bible reading in the public schools of a school district where most people favor prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Nor does it mean that there cannot be manger scenes on the country court house of counties that favor manger scenes. Of course, if the voters in a country favor a menorah to commemorate Hanuka, that is fine with me.

"Freedom of speech, or of the press" should be restricted to unlimited political debate. I am opposed to restrictions on Communist Party members and on those who argue that some races are intrinsically superior to others.

"Freedom of speech, or of the press" should not allow unlimited financial contributions to political candidates. I want the American people to have access to more opinions, not more access to the Republican opinion that the rich should have more money and power.

Because flag desecration contributes nothing of value to a political discussion, I want it to be outlawed. Again, this should be left up to the voters, as should be restrictions on obscenity and pornography. The voters of California probably favor fewer restrictions on obscenity and pornography than voters in the Bible Belt.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

As far as polygamy goes, there are some very serious practical flaws associated with those who practice it.

First, are you familiar with the phrase "bleeding the beast"? That is where polygamous wives are encouraged to sign up for welfare benefits, being that they are 'single mothers.' As the husband, you will live very well with a half dozen wives all collecting welfare and food stamps.

Second, as long as the birth rate between boys and girls remains close to 1:1, within a generation or two, the single men will out number the available women by a substantial number. It is simply an unsustainable arrangement.

Third, it has been shown that the females in these polygamous settings lose any power or rights they should take for granted. The husband has technically half, while the wives divide up the other remaining half among themselves. In reality, the husband controls it all, and the more women in the marriage, the less protection each of them has, including the protection of their children. The women become little more than servants and chattel.

In that, I say the government has a compelling and overriding interest in preventing the legal practice of polygamy.

 

[uptower]

Whenever right wingers preach freedom of speech they mean theirs and nobody else's. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism as they say. The other axiom being free speech, like elections have consequences. I might have just made that up.

I believe that free speech applies to criticism of the authorities and the 'freedom' to use the appropriate forum to express one's views up to a certain point. If those views are hateful or inciteful (and I'm talking about religious, ethnic hatred here, not complaining about a politician you don't like), don't be surprised if someone takes away that platform. You cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and free speech should not mean being able to shout 'n****r' in the town square. Those who want to use it to spread hate are abusing the privilege. As it stands the first amendment protects that privilege, but don't be surprised if you lose friends, or a permit to use the village green.

Bear in mind there are many countries that rank higher than the US in safety, quality of life, and the freedom and wellbeing indices, who outlaw hate speech (NZ, Aus, Canada, Western Europe and Scandinavia) so it is demonstrably true that a society can flourish without.

Let us also remember that many on the right who want to assert the freedom to hate on minorities, other religions, etc in the name of 'free speech' also want the press to be shut down for criticising their favorite orange man-baby, which was the whole point of the 1st Amendment to begin with: to allow the people to criticize their leader without being locked up (or worse) for treason.

The other aspect of free speech they don't seem to keen on is voting rights. They are quite happy creating artificial barriers (and physical ones) and legal obstacles to keep minorities and recently even Millennials from voting. Citizen's United argued that under the 1st Amendment, corporations are 'people' as well, giving an outsized voice to large political donors: apparently though real people are not as human as big corporations.

So next time a right-winger talks freedom of speech this is what they mean:

1. Freedom to discriminate
2. Freedom to impose hateful views on others
3. Freedom to incite hatred
4. Prohibiting criticism for doing the above
5. Prohibiting criticism of their preferred politicians
6. Prohibiting voting rights for minorities and dissenters

That's their interpretation of the 1st Amendment and 'freedom'. Which leads us to the 2nd Amendment: the 'freedom' by which they hope to impose their will on the rest of us.

 

[SmartCat]

Bear in mind there are many countries that rank higher than the US in safety, quality of life, and the freedom and wellbeing indices, who outlaw hate speech (NZ, Aus, Canada, Western Europe and Scandinavia) so it is demonstrably true that a society can flourish without.

Do you define The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein to be hate speech?

 

[Bullseye]

All you have to do is listen to the one with the microphone. Are they calling for the end of cancer? Are they encouraging their fellow citizens to clean up their neighborhoods and take pride in their communities?

Or, are they spewing hate? Calling for violence against a particular group or individual? Granted, most people will not act on this, but all you have to do is reach one, one unhinged individual who will shoot up a synagogue or church. One individual who will commit mayhem in a school or a news room. One person willing to set off a pipe bomb on a crowded street. When you have an audience that numbers in the millions, you can find that one fairly easy.

Calling for violence is never acceptable free speech. But censuring dissent or opposing points of view on the extremely rare change that some individual will turn that into violence is worse and sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[lwf]

The mainstream media is reluctant to report news that portrays blacks and homosexuals unfavorably. Many Americans think the mainstream media reports an America that differs from the one they experience in their lives. This has created a market for people like Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.

No argument here. The majority is hardly an absolute majority. Indeed, past presidential elections have shown that all it takes is democratic disenchantment with their own candidate for the republican candidate to take the electoral college even without a majority vote.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Calling for violence is never acceptable free speech. But censuring dissent or opposing points of view on the extremely rare change that some individual will turn that into violence is worse and sets a dangerous precedent.

I agree. However, when that unhinged person claims he was influenced to act by the rhetoric of some pundit or politician who's audience numbers in the millions, I believe that needs to be investigated and if it proves to have merit, they ought to be held to account for their irresponsible behavior.

It used to be that the FCC could hold license holders accountable for not adhering to the principles of the Fairness Doctrine. That went away when Reagan de-fanged the FCC and did away with the doctrine. No longer do broadcast licencees have to demonstrate they are acting in the interests of the communities they serve. It allowed the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their ilk to spread hate and lies across the airwaves, encouraging people to avail themselves of such things as "their second amendment remedies." Do you recall when Trump warned us against electing Hillary because if she was elected she would appoint liberal justices to the USSC and there would not be anything that could be done about it? "Well," Trump said, "Maybe the second amendment people could do something about it." Trump supporters cheered at that. That, in my opinion, was one of the most chilling things any candidate for president had ever said.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Amendment I

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.

----------

When interpreting the United States Constitution I favor a literal and minimal interpretation, deferring to public opinion as revealed in election results. I dislike the Supreme Court as an institution. I particularly dislike it when the Supreme Court overturns popular laws that have been in effect for a long time.

For me the Establishment Clause simply means that Congress shall not create an established church, similar to the Church of England. It does not mean that there should not be prayer and Bible reading in the public schools of a school district where most people favor prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Nor does it mean that there cannot be manger scenes on the country court house of counties that favor manger scenes. Of course, if the voters in a country favor a menorah to commemorate Hanuka, that is fine with me.

"Freedom of speech, or of the press" should be restricted to unlimited political debate. I am opposed to restrictions on Communist Party members and on those who argue that some races are intrinsically superior to others.

"Freedom of speech, or of the press" should not allow unlimited financial contributions to political candidates. I want the American people to have access to more opinions, not more access to the Republican opinion that the rich should have more money and power.

Because flag desecration contributes nothing of value to a political discussion, I want it to be outlawed. Again, this should be left up to the voters, as should be restrictions on obscenity and pornography. The voters of California probably favor fewer restrictions on obscenity and pornography than voters in the Bible Belt.

I'll address the issue of community standards you've raised regarding pornography.

There was a landmark case you will want to read. Link.

It involves a couple in California who owned and operated an adult-oriented bulletin board service wherein adults could dial in from virtually anywhere and access pornography. In short, a postal inspector was enlisted to access the service and download material to his home in Tennessee. The couple in California were charged with violating laws regarding interstate transport of obscene materials and they were tried in Tennessee, a Bible Belt state know to have far more conservative standards when it came to such issues as pornography. They were convicted in Tennessee, even though they had never set foot in that state prior to their arrest and trial.

So much for 'community' standards.

 

[Vadinho]

Money should not be considered speech in terms of first amendment rights.

 

[uptower]

Do you define The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein to be hate speech?

Why should I care?

 

[Lisa]

English a secondary language?

What purpose would it serve to have an official language except to further xenophobia? The country/society would be much better served if it was mandatory that all people learn a second language.

 

[Rexedgar]

What purpose would it serve to have an official language except to further xenophobia? The country/society would be much better served if it was mandatory that all people learn a second language.

How long ago did I post? The problem with a second language in the US is the “use it or lose it” syndrome. I was fluent in another language when younger. It’s similar to muscles, if not used they atrophy. In travels overseas, the English language is spoken almost universally.

 

[Lisa]

How long ago did I post? The problem with a second language in the US is the “use it or lose it” syndrome. I was fluent in another language when younger. It’s similar to muscles, if not used they atrophy. In travels overseas, the English language is spoken almost universally.

I can still speak French reasonably well to get along. I know some German and a little bit of Arabic.

For some strange reason ignorance in almost every area of life has become a point of pride for many Americans. The idea that many Americans are still convinced the world began 6000 years ago is shocking. The knowledge of science in the US is deplorable. Logic has somehow become a foreign language.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

What purpose would it serve to have an official language except to further xenophobia? The country/society would be much better served if it was mandatory that all people learn a second language.

Actually, I know of one country that has legislated that all public communications be in Spanish. That country is Colombia. I don't know about xenophobia there, but I can tell you this: Colombians proudly speak the most grammatically correct and properly pronounced Spanish in the entire world. I speak Spanish and I have been to just about every Spanish speaking country in the world. Colombians are the best. Cubans are the worst.

 

[Grand Mal]

What purpose would it serve to have an official language except to further xenophobia? The country/society would be much better served if it was mandatory that all people learn a second language.

An official language is one the people have a right to communicate with the government in. If you want to have signs on your shop window in Croatian or Vietnamese, fine, but if you're fighting a traffic ticket or appealing an income tax decision in the US you need to do it in English. Some countries have more than one- Switzerland has four.

 

[Grand Mal]

I can still speak French reasonably well to get along. I know some German and a little bit of Arabic.

For some strange reason ignorance in almost every area of life has become a point of pride for many Americans. The idea that many Americans are still convinced the world began 6000 years ago is shocking. The knowledge of science in the US is deplorable. Logic has somehow become a foreign language.

It's like a cult of proud ignorance. There's definitely a kind of philistinism about education, for example.

 

[Lisa]

An official language is one the people have a right to communicate with the government in. If you want to have signs on your shop window in Croatian or Vietnamese, fine, but if you're fighting a traffic ticket or appealing an income tax decision in the US you need to do it in English. Some countries have more than one- Switzerland has four.

English is the default language in the US but it is not mandated. The government also communicates in Spanish, French, German and many other languages if you ask. I don't like the idea of mandated language because it promotes xenophobia, which we already have a severe problem with. If English was the language the next problem would be wich dialect because the people in the southeast speak differently then those in the northeast or northwest. The US is a nation of diversity and we should be celebrating it instead of punishing those who are of different cultures.

 

[Grand Mal]

English is the default language in the US but it is not mandated. The government also communicates in Spanish, French, German and many other languages if you ask. I don't like the idea of mandated language because it promotes xenophobia, which we already have a severe problem with. If English was the language the next problem would be wich dialect because the people in the southeast speak differently then those in the northeast or northwest. The US is a nation of diversity and we should be celebrating it instead of punishing those who are of different cultures.

I didn't know that, that the US government would communicate with you in another language.
It's an unexpectedly enlightened policy. Must be cumbersome, though.

 

[Lisa]

I didn't know that, that the US government would communicate with you in another language.
It's an unexpectedly enlightened policy. Must be cumbersome, though.

English, French, Spanish, German, and many of the native languages of the tribes. You just have to ask.

 

[Glitch]

English is the default language in the US but it is not mandated. The government also communicates in Spanish, French, German and many other languages if you ask. I don't like the idea of mandated language because it promotes xenophobia, which we already have a severe problem with. If English was the language the next problem would be wich dialect because the people in the southeast speak differently then those in the northeast or northwest. The US is a nation of diversity and we should be celebrating it instead of punishing those who are of different cultures.

English is the official language of Alaska, and it is mandated. There are more than 100 different languages spoken in Alaska and it would be extremely costly for government to publish everything in all those languages. Therefore, Alaska adopted English as the official language in 1998 for State agencies, local governments, school districts, public corporations and the university.