• 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!

Perversion of the 1st Amendment

"The only thing that I am guilty of is poor taste." -Larry Flint
 
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".
The "original intention" is a mirage. Although written by one person (Madison), the intentions of those who ratified it are very diverse.

Anyway: The 1st Amendment has its limits, but it has taken decades to develop and balance those limits. Threats are not protected, but that wasn't included in the 1st Amendment. Obscenity was also not tolerated for many years, but our idea of "obscenity" today doesn't match that of someone in 1950 or 1850 or 1750.


Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.
(Cross-dressing is a great evil? Seriously?)

Whatever, dude

The things that you classify as "obscene" or "degenerate" are broadly accepted as legal by Americans, and changes over time. What strikes you as not having a "legitimate cultural purpose" can be accepted by millions as having an important sociopolitical statement.

For example: **NSFW** https://news.artnet.com/app/news-up...-by-robert-mapplethorpe-1980-1352372123_b.jpg

You may personally disapprove of explicit images that criticize our assumptions about human sexuality, but guess what? The right to free speech is precisely what defends the rest of us from a censorious authoritarian like you. No one put you in charge of deciding what people can and cannot say.

I'm also a bit tired of people proclaiming that our society is "degenerate," when in fact crime rates are down, deaths in war have dropped significantly, and aside from a lot of partisan sniping, things are actually generally going fairly well.
 
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".

Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.

Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.

Obscenity is still illegal and not constitutionally protected.
 
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".

Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.

Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.

I mean, I feel like you can look at the words and say they were trying to create a superior class and legislate to societal norms. That makes sense when you accept they were racist slave owners. But they also set in motion a ball to big for a single man to stop it. We took in refugees and folks came to work and live free from everywhere. This is what it has become.

I feel like people always confuse the ideas of freedom "to," and freedom "from." People always say, why should I have to see this, or hear that. You don't. You can leave. But you have the right to feel that way and be that way. There is a percentage of Americans that agree with you. If people can create a market for "degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing)," then in America, plunk down 15 bucks buy a biz lic and do it. You have the freedom to do it.

Freedom from is like a dictatorship where citizens have to watch propaganda. In our country you can leave anywhere you want.

Freedom to is what you have the right to do and feel. And they have their same right to do and feel, hell it seems like even puffer fish have the right to, but here, everyone has the right to be who the hell they want.

You don't get to pick my opinions, and I don't get to pick yourn.

Oliver Wendell Holmes
*Every idea is an incitement... eloquence may set fire to reason.
*If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
*A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."
 
Based on my understanding of the original intended interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it was only intended to protect the free expression of ideas and constructive criticism of the government. Things which it was not intended to grant unlimited protection to, for example, would be obscenity, threats, or forms of 'expression' which don't qualify as real expression of "ideas".

Unfortunately in the 1970s the Amendment was intentionally mis-interpreted to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) which serve no legitimate cultural purpose to fall under the veil of "protected speech", even though they don't genuinely qualify as as such, and serve only to produce degenerative moral effects on society, and give degenerate individuals the false belief that they have a "right" to engage in obscenity and degeneracy.

Personally I feel that the 1st Amendment should be put under the microscope and not off limits; and ideally our nation and culture would likely fare better if it were restored to a more classical definition which distinguished between obscenity and degenerate expression and actual "speech", or at least didn't circumvent the rights of states to enforce their own obscenity laws.

So if you don't like something we just gave that a classical definition and call it obscene. Just think how that would work today in the political climate we are in right now.


“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
William O. Douglas
 
I think anything that isn't threatening or inciting mass panic should be protected under the first amendment. If that guy wants to wear a skirt, then by all means.
 
Back
Top Bottom