• 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

Ovid

Banned
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
298
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
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.
 
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 say we ban fake news. We can start by taking Fox and Rush off the air.
 
I say we ban fake news. We can start by taking Fox and Rush off the air.

I say we just ban speech/expressions of ideas that we personally disagree with, since that's clearly what the OP is advocating for here.
 
I say we ban fake news. We can start by taking Fox and Rush off the air.
I consider both Fox, Rush, and all mainstream corporate-funded US media to be fake news. I prefer RussiaToday to any American media, but then again I prefer books to media to begin with.
 
I say we just ban speech/expressions of ideas that we personally disagree with, since that's clearly what the OP is advocating for here.
No, simply allowing that which does not qualify as speech or idea to begin with to be censored, as in how we distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

Things which are considered obscene for example. I don't think sociologically qualify as "ideas" to begin with since they're born from and only appeal to the lower animal impulses and stimulation.
 
I consider both Fox, Rush, and all mainstream corporate-funded US media to be fake news.

And, I probably consider what you call obscene to be mainstream.
 
And, I probably consider what you call obscene to be mainstream.
It doesn't matter what you consider, only what's objective reality.

Just as Marquis de Sade may have considered raping and torturing children to just be 'mainstream', obviously though it was actually him and what was the 'mainstream' within his immoral circle that was the deviation from objective truth.

So if the mainstream is obscene, then of course it's the mainstream which needs to be modified and corrected to meet objective standards of taste, not the other way around.
 
No, simply allowing that which does not qualify as speech or idea to begin with to be censored, as in how we distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

Things which are considered obscene for example. I don't think sociologically qualify as "ideas" to begin with since they're born from and only appeal to the lower animal impulses and stimulation.

You are proving my point.

Since YOU personally disagree with it, therefore you want it to not be protected under the 1st Amendment. That's not how it works, nor was that ever how it was supposed to work.

The 1st Amendment doesn't just protect speech that you like/agree with, pal.
 
You are proving my point.

Since YOU personally disagree with it, therefore you want it to not be protected under the 1st Amendment. That's not how it works, nor was that ever how it was supposed to work.
No, I'm saying it's objectively obscene whether I personally agree with it or not.

Just like how "2 + 2 = 5" is objectively false, whether or not you or I "think" it is true. And obviously those who think 2 + 2 = 5 should not be catered to over those who acknowledge that it equals 4.

The "eye of the beholder" is irrelevant; some have 20/20 vision, others are blind. So obviously those with keener vision should be catered to over those who lack vision.

The 1st Amendment doesn't just protect speech that you like/agree with, pal.
It only protects speech, not things which don't meet a correct sociological definition of speech to begin with.
 
It doesn't matter what you consider, only what's objective reality.

Just as Marquis de Sade may have considered raping and torturing children to just be 'mainstream', obviously though it was actually him and what was the 'mainstream' within his immoral circle that was the deviation from objective truth.

So if the mainstream is obscene, then of course it's the mainstream which needs to be modified and corrected to meet objective standards of taste, not the other way around.

Well, Fox News is objectively fake news.
 
Well, Fox News is objectively fake news.
All American news is, Fox included - it is primarily designed simply to make money and promote trust in the American federal-corporate establishment through sensationalist headlines.
 
All American news is, Fox included - it is primarily designed simply to make money and promote trust in the American federal-corporate establishment through sensationalist headlines.

Good. We can start by banning advertising then. They are all lies anyway.
 
No, I'm saying it's objectively obscene whether I personally agree with it or not.

Just like how "2 + 2 = 5" is objectively false, whether or not you or I "think" it is true. And obviously those who think 2 + 2 = 5 should not be catered to over those who acknowledge that it equals 4.

The "eye of the beholder" is irrelevant; some have 20/20 vision, others are blind. So obviously those with keener vision should be catered to over those who lack vision.


It only protects speech, not things which don't meet a correct sociological definition of speech to begin with.

Keep going. You are doing a great job proving my point.
 
Good. We can start by banning advertising then. They are all lies anyway.
I'd be tempted to support that, or anything that helps speed up the destruction of modern America's morally degenerate, consumerist system of rape, lust, and greed for that matter. America was dead long ago, today it's a bastion of libertinism and corporate captialistic degeneracy and vice. That's why Russia's economy and culture is rising while ours declines like that of Rome.
 
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.

Well, you do have a 'right' to your opinion so there's that.

So what is your suggestion on fixing this highly important national disaster?
 
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.

Your understanding is flawed. We can see this simply by looking at the first amendment:

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.

Being the handy, nice person I am, I highlighted the key portions. By applying a skill known as reading, we discover what the founding fathers intended that congress is not allowed to make laws limiting people's free speech. Notice the lack of words such as "only", or "except", or "legitimate cultural purpose". See, now you actually know what the founding fathers intended. You are welcome.
 
I'd be tempted to support that, or anything that helps speed up the destruction of modern America's morally degenerate, consumerist system of rape, lust, and greed for that matter. America was dead long ago, today it's a bastion of libertinism and corporate captialistic degeneracy and vice. That's why Russia's economy and culture is rising while ours declines like that of Rome.

Are you even an American? Russia's economy, the latest incarnation of one anyways, was founded on gangster capitalism, with a YUGE injection of Western Corporate cash. Unbridled, literally murderous, greed would be the adjectives I'd use to describe Russia's version of economic 'prosperity'. Russia's economy rises and falls on the price of natural gas... a fitting product.

Not sure what metric you are using to claim a Russian culture but I don't think many outside of Russia have the same scale. Russian culture seems to hinge on internet porn where young girls do things I didn't think anyone with a shred of morality would do with so many men at the same time (but thankfully they are giving the former Warsaw Pact porn stars a run for their money) :mrgreen:
 
I consider both Fox, Rush, and all mainstream corporate-funded US media to be fake news. I prefer RussiaToday to any American media, but then again I prefer books to media to begin with.

Ah, so you are a fan of Pravda.
 
Your understanding is flawed. We can see this simply by looking at the first amendment:



Being the handy, nice person I am, I highlighted the key portions. By applying a skill known as reading, we discover what the founding fathers intended that congress is not allowed to make laws limiting people's free speech. Notice the lack of words such as "only", or "except", or "legitimate cultural purpose". See, now you actually know what the founding fathers intended. You are welcome.

Ovid is horribly wrong but I think you missed the point of his/her argument.
 
I consider both Fox, Rush, and all mainstream corporate-funded US media to be fake news. I prefer RussiaToday to any American media, but then again I prefer books to media to begin with.

Stay in Russia then, we dont want you here.
 
How about if we just stop you from saying what you want to say?Would you support that idea?



"The only valid censorship of ideas is everyone's right not to listen." Tommy Smothers
 
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.

Isn't "obscenity" rather like "beauty"? In the eye of the beholder?
 
How about if we just stop you from saying what you want to say?Would you support that idea?



"The only valid censorship of ideas is everyone's right not to listen." Tommy Smothers
That would be the objective thing to do.
 
Ovid wrote "to allow for degenerate "art", obscenities, and "expression" (such as cross-dressing) "

Don't judge me until you have walked 1.6 kilometres in my heels.
 
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.
Reality tell us that in most cases it is the degenerates who label others as such.
 
Back
Top Bottom