• 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!

First Amendment; What's yor take on it?

My history is a bit fuzzy, but the peoples that Britain colonized weren’t offered the same freedoms, were they?

They definitely weren't. The freedoms were for British citizens only.
 
They definitely weren't. The freedoms were for British citizens only.

While I think the Magna Carta was an important document, it is a myth that it granted broad rights to the masses. It was between the king and his barons. Nothing about free speech at all, and little about religion. It did have some to do about due process, and that is important (Fifth Amendment), but that's a different issue. In short, I dispute the premise that it's the basis for the First Amendment at all.
 
Broadening the discussion a little, religion is another aspect of the First Amendment. It comes in to the discussion here as a corollary to the "private interests" vs. public agency issue. While private agencies, e.g., schools, can discriminate - in membership and employment - based upon religious preferences, it becomes problematic when they are engaged in public service activities - e.g. hospitals, adoption, child care, etc. In the current environment, religious organizations - and even non-religious ones - are being given carte blanche to discriminate when engaging in erstwhile public activities. I see that as a problem, especially when public services are contracted out. As was noted earlier by someone else, your personal preferences stop at the water's edge of public activities.
 
The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.
 
The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.

That's a joke, right?
 
The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.

Lets suppose that you spoke in haste and tongue in cheek.

The OP offered the following
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own

Responsibly, that is really a mouthful. Whether it is Potus himself, members of Congress, or anyone around or in between, we do have a responsibility. I brought up Ms Waters in some post and got an answer that made me think about it some more.
Does one avail oneself of the 1st Amendment responsibly when calling for harassment? Is one sending the willing into situations that could, potentially, become violent?
Of course that depends on both sides, on temper, mentality, ability to walk away if necessary.

As to your point, I think it is ok to criticize Trump. He could certainly benefit from constructive criticism. The discourse we observe these days, have in the past during both the GW and Obama administration, leaves much to be desired. It is easy getting caught up in it. I am guilty of it as well.
For what it's worth, the world is watching and judging.
 
The way liberals use free speech to vilify President Trump is an abuse of free speech and they should be punished for doing it.

Lets suppose that you spoke in haste and tongue in cheek.

The OP offered the following


Responsibly, that is really a mouthful. Whether it is Potus himself, members of Congress, or anyone around or in between, we do have a responsibility. I brought up Ms Waters in some post and got an answer that made me think about it some more.
Does one avail oneself of the 1st Amendment responsibly when calling for harassment? Is one sending the willing into situations that could, potentially, become violent?
Of course that depends on both sides, on temper, mentality, ability to walk away if necessary.

As to your point, I think it is ok to criticize Trump. He could certainly benefit from constructive criticism. The discourse we observe these days, have in the past during both the GW and Obama administration, leaves much to be desired. It is easy getting caught up in it. I am guilty of it as well.
For what it's worth, the world is watching and judging.

I would argue that critisizing the president, whether or not that criticism is constructive, or even valid, is the core purpose of the freedom of speech. An American should be able to beligerently mouth off about Obama, George W, or Trump, without worrying about whether or not the Gestapo are around. Punishing citizens for what they say about the government, the head of a branch of government, or a government figure, is an obvious trait of authoritarian regimes, and the polar opposite of what it is that we're supposed to represent.

Given how ludicrously backwards ComminityStanda's statement is, and considering the few posts I've seen from person, I beleive that I'm talking to only one serious poster here. I have my doubts that CommunityStanda genuinely beleives the things that come out of his or her mouth.
 
I agree with this line of reasoning. But I think there is a fine line between censorship and de-platforming. I think the government should never engage in this type of censorship, but I'm not so sure that non-government groups shouldn't have that right as part of their own freedom of speech. I think facebook is allowed to de-platform those whose speech it doesn't want to be associated with. Similarly, I think schools have a right to deny a platform to those whose messages they perceive as particularly offensive or dangerous. Protest groups have a right to drown out messages they disagree with.

Freedom of Speech should definitely be freedom from criminal prosecution based solely on speech. Beyond that, non-criminal means of suppressing messages that the majority prefer not to amplify are well within the bounds of the majority's own freedom of speech. You have a right to speak your mind, but not necessarily a right to be listened to.

So how do we find out what "the majority" prefers? Who has that formula? Who gets to speak for the majority?

Are we heading for what they called in 1787 "the tyranny of the majority"?
 
So how do we find out what "the majority" prefers? Who has that formula? Who gets to speak for the majority?

Are we heading for what they called in 1787 "the tyranny of the majority"?

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 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.

In matters of economics the free market might determine any given "majority" thinks, but in matters other than commerce and economics, how is it determined?

The MSM's agenda is to support the status quo and disseminate government propaganda, as we saw in the runup to our global war of terror and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we are currently seeing regarding the proposed regime change in Venezuela.
 
In matters of economics the free market might determine any given "majority" thinks, but in matters other than commerce and economics, how is it determined?

The MSM's agenda is to support the status quo and disseminate government propaganda, as we saw in the runup to our global war of terror and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we are currently seeing regarding the proposed regime change in Venezuela.

I disagree. While the MSM can be used for these things in specific circumstances, it is not it's overall purpose in a capitalist society. It's sole purpose, one that overrides all attempts to artificially control it, is to maximize profits. While this isn't the most responsible way to share information, it is a pure and precise way to get a sense of where the majority of a society stands on their moral values, beliefs, education, what they enjoy, and what they're afraid of. American culture more than any other is an open book to the world directly through the mainstream media.
 
So how do we find out what "the majority" prefers? Who has that formula? Who gets to speak for the majority?

Are we heading for what they called in 1787 "the tyranny of the majority"?

I submit that you have that exactly backwards. The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the oppression of minorities by the majority. The majority never have a problem finding outlets to get their message out, it's the minority whose cries are often drown out or circumscribed. Politically speaking, majorities are usually determined by elections. We have a roughly representative democracy (which, unfortunately, is being manipulated to keep a distinct minority in charge, but that is another thread). That's the formula.
 
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.

Tell them how? If you are conservative and outspoken you will be banned from most ways to express your opinion. The Democratic Party fully supports censorship now because they will do and support anything the corporate super rich want.
 
English a secondary language?

Not many people on the forum will hold that against you.

For example, people with English as a first language understand a sentence such as your's required at least 1 verb. But that's ok.

What is your native language?
 
I submit that you have that exactly backwards. The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the oppression of minorities by the majority. The majority never have a problem finding outlets to get their message out, it's the minority whose cries are often drown out or circumscribed. Politically speaking, majorities are usually determined by elections. We have a roughly representative democracy (which, unfortunately, is being manipulated to keep a distinct minority in charge, but that is another thread). That's the formula.

No, it is to prevent government silencing criticism. It is ONLY about government. In fact, most Democrats SCREAM it is ONLY about government, furiously demanding the super rich corporations can ban anything they want from the Internet - or the vast majority of "speech" in the world today.

It is not to "protect minority opinions from majority opinions."
 
Tell them how? If you are conservative and outspoken you will be banned from most ways to express your opinion. The Democratic Party fully supports censorship now because they will do and support anything the corporate super rich want.

oh, please. Facebook and Twitter aren't "the Internet" and they're companies that are allowed to do what they're want. If enough people cared that Alex Jones was banned from Twitter or Facebook, some new site would immediately get hugely popular overnight and the world would move on. The Dems weren't calling for this. Meanwhile, Trump openly threatens the First Amendment, and Republicans at both state and federal levels (and a few Dems, to be fair), have been trying to censor people and all sorts of media for decades.
 
While I think the Magna Carta was an important document, it is a myth that it granted broad rights to the masses. It was between the king and his barons. Nothing about free speech at all, and little about religion. It did have some to do about due process, and that is important (Fifth Amendment), but that's a different issue. In short, I dispute the premise that it's the basis for the First Amendment at all.

Your own link says that the formation of the American Constitution was influenced by the legend of the Magna Carta... the belief in God-given, inalienable human rights.
 
Ladies and gentlemen:

I'm not one to get into the weeds of the lib/con, Rep/Dem, red/blue nonsense that passes for discourse these days. I do note a curiosity in the opposing forces who wish to impose their concept of 'free speech' on their fellow Americans, however.

Consider, if you will, fundamentalist groups attempting to legislate the free speech of doctors as they advise pregnant women on their health options. Contrast this with a non-government internet 'forum' restricting certain users on moral/ethical grounds. Religion vs. secular ethics? An interesting battlefield, nu?
 
I submit that you have that exactly backwards. The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the oppression of minorities by the majority. The majority never have a problem finding outlets to get their message out, it's the minority whose cries are often drown out or circumscribed. Politically speaking, majorities are usually determined by elections. We have a roughly representative democracy (which, unfortunately, is being manipulated to keep a distinct minority in charge, but that is another thread). That's the formula.

Thank God for gerrymandering, eh?
 
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others



YES, you are correct. One wise person once said that "Freedom of the Press" applies only to anyone who has a press to print a newspaper. Today it would apply to anyone who can host his/her own website.


There is NO "Freedom of Speech" for anyone else:


1. Children can be kicked out of their homes for their ideas.
2. Workers can have conflict with colleagues for their ideas.
3. Students can be hounded from their schools for their ideas.
4. People can be banned from Internet platforms for their ideas.


"Freedom of Speech" does not exist in any country.

It never has.


It never will.
 
Just like people today think nothing about allowing the federal government to violate their Fourth Amendment rights every time they board a plane.

It is a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the needs of society at large. In the case of the TSA, it has been decided that the need to prevent someone from blowing up a plane outweighs the individuals rights to privacy and 4th amendment searches. I personally don't mind giving up for the search if it means the bomb or gun in the carry-on behind me is stopped from being brought on my plane.
 
It is a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the needs of society at large. In the case of the TSA, it has been decided that the need to prevent someone from blowing up a plane outweighs the individuals rights to privacy and 4th amendment searches. I personally don't mind giving up for the search if it means the bomb or gun in the carry-on behind me is stopped from being brought on my plane.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

Sounds to me like you will support any excuse for government to violate our rights. Security is merely a illusion to make the self-deluded "feel" safe. There is no compromises in the US Constitution for "the needs of society at large." Where the US Constitution tells the government they are prohibited from exercising a power, then there is absolutely no excuse for violating that prohibition.

You should mind being searched when boarding a plane, because the next step is for government to start searching your vehicle and your home at will, without a warrant. They didn't need one to search you when you boarded a plane, so why should the 4th Amendment even be required any longer? Lets just abolish all the Bill of Rights completely and turn the US into the fascist nation that you clearly desire.
 
YES, you are correct. One wise person once said that "Freedom of the Press" applies only to anyone who has a press to print a newspaper. Today it would apply to anyone who can host his/her own website.


There is NO "Freedom of Speech" for anyone else:


1. Children can be kicked out of their homes for their ideas.
2. Workers can have conflict with colleagues for their ideas.
3. Students can be hounded from their schools for their ideas.
4. People can be banned from Internet platforms for their ideas.


"Freedom of Speech" does not exist in any country.

It never has.


It never will.

Yet in reality, you and I both are free to post and say what we want for all practical purposes.

If we get too bold and aggressive doing that, as Julian Assange has done, well...….
 
If we get too bold and aggressive doing that, as Julian Assange has done, well...….




The fact that "bold" and "aggressive" comments are determined by censors is proof that there is NO genuine "freedom of speech."


As you know, every day we read about certain Internet platforms forbidding the discussion of certain topics and banning certain posters.

There IS, of course, "freedom of speech" for politically correct speech. That is the same as saying that China has freedom of speech because any Chinese person can get on the Chinese Internet and say that the Communist government is the best thing that has ever happened to China and that President Xi should hold that position for life.


IMHO, we Americans should admit that we do NOT have freedom of speech. At least we would be honest.



Have a nice weekend!
 
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

Sounds to me like you will support any excuse for government to violate our rights. Security is merely a illusion to make the self-deluded "feel" safe. There is no compromises in the US Constitution for "the needs of society at large." Where the US Constitution tells the government they are prohibited from exercising a power, then there is absolutely no excuse for violating that prohibition.

You should mind being searched when boarding a plane, because the next step is for government to start searching your vehicle and your home at will, without a warrant. They didn't need one to search you when you boarded a plane, so why should the 4th Amendment even be required any longer? Lets just abolish all the Bill of Rights completely and turn the US into the fascist nation that you clearly desire.

No provision for the needs of society ate large? I beg to differ. It's right there in the preamble: "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, ..."

So you would prefer that anyone be allowed to blow up planes at will? That would in your mind fulfill the intent of the Constitution? To you it is all about personal freedom and it matters not how many innocents die as long as you don't have to open your bag at the airport? Spare me the 'slippery slope' crap.

The fact is aircraft and WMD did not exist at the time of the Founding Fathers. If they did, you would suggest the FF would have ignored the realities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom