• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

KillerBee Comments on the First Amendment

KillerBee

KillerBee

Golden Member
It's so annoying ...


Take some time off to better edit your posting style, please.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not really what she said. She's really asking if we can regulate speech in the ways they do in Europe or Australia in spite of us having the First Amendment. Bear in mind, we DO regulate speech even with the First Amendment: kiddie porn, obscenities, fighting words, sometimes commercial speech (false advertising) and also civil action against defamation. Those other countries regulate those kinds of speech too. But they also add some other areas to what can be regulated.

The problem with what she's saying is that these other areas invariably amount to political speech, which our SCOTUS has said is the most protected form of speech, by intent of the the original drafters. So what she's saying is a no-go. In America, private companies can self-regulate if they want. That is all.
 
If I changed the title to " CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment - I mean what were they thinking?"

Would that make you happier?
 
OP is blatantly lying.

The thread title is totally misleading, she didn't say anything even remotely close to what OP is suggesting.
 
KillerBee said:
If I changed the title to " CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment - I mean what were they thinking?"

Would that make you happier?
Click to expand...

But she isn't really asking for that either. Nowhere in the 1A does it say we can ban, say, kiddie porn. But we banned it anyway without amending it. I think she's saying is it OK to interpret the 1A as allowing for regulating certain other kinds of "harmful speech." And like I said, the answer is no, according to plenty of SCOTUS precedent.
 
KillerBee said:
If I changed the title to " CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment - I mean what were they thinking?"

Would that make you happier?
Click to expand...

do you still not grasp the reality of the first amendment not being unlimited?

the first response to this thread presented just that and you can also add yelling fire in a crowd to that list. are you upset that hate speech is being banned by large corporations ?
 
What illusion are you under where I said anything whatsoever about yelling fire in a crowd or hate speech?
 
KillerBee said:
What illusion are you under where I said anything whatsoever about yelling fire in a crowd or hate speech?
Click to expand...

that's clearly getting "rid of this American First Amendment thing"

the video you provided is about just that, limitations on the first amendment and has nothing to do with what you state.
 
Clearly - you are some type of Magical Mind Reader
The video provided shows a CBS news anchor asking why can't we edit our First Amendment
You seem to be agreeing with her ? Should we add an extra couple thousand clauses to cover everything?
 
KillerBee said:
Clearly - you are some type of Magical Mind Reader
The video provided shows a CBS news anchor asking why can't we edit our First Amendment
You seem to be agreeing with her ? Should we add an extra couple thousand clauses to cover everything?
Click to expand...

are you a fan of Carnac or something?

is making hate speech and yelling fire in a crowd not editing our 1st Amendment? that is what she is talking about, not getting "rid of this American First Amendment thing".

many democratic nations like Australia have freedom of speech that differs slightly from ours and none of them are, say it one more time...getting "rid of this American First Amendment thing".
 
woolfe9998 said:
... Bear in mind, we DO regulate speech even with the First Amendment: kiddie porn, obscenities, fighting words, sometimes commercial speech (false advertising) and also civil action against defamation. Those other countries regulate those kinds of speech too. But they also add some other areas to what can be regulated.

...
Click to expand...
That's a common misunderstanding.

Kiddie porn, well yeah because it violates the rights of a child that had no real choice.

Any other kind of porn? Obscenities? Nope. Government doesn't restrict that. Only the FCC restricts free public / unencrypted broadcast.

What regulations are there against "fighting words?" You're allowed to say them, and in some cases a threatened person could be justified in attacking you. Fighting words are not forbidden.

False advertising is simple theft by deception. That's not restricting free speech at all. If a false advertisement didn't cause you to lose money or time, or cause you any other kind of loss, you probably can't do anything about it.
 
The person in the video wants to adopt the speech policies of European countries, which has led to things like a man being arrested for his Nazi pug joke.
 
Trying my best to interpret
from what I can tell you are saying is: Yes we should edit the First Amendment and include clauses to cover everything

It's ok if that is your opinion - don't get angry or insulting about it
 
KillerBee said:
Trying my best to interpret
from what I can tell you are saying is: Yes we should edit the First Amendment and include clauses to cover everything

It's ok if that is your opinion - don't get angry or insulting about it
Click to expand...

The tell-tale sign of a troll is they tend to assume that their lies are real, and thus that people are upset at them for have been exposed, rather than it's because they're just telling lies, making false accusations, and other discussing in bad faith.
 
UglyCasanova said:
The freedom to say whatever you want even if it falls into those other areas makes America great. They’re trying to ban ideas, that’s 1984ish
Click to expand...


Several x's and snoozes etc, what is it you guys disagree with?

I miss the liberals, they’d defend people’s rights to express whatever ideas people want. They fought against the man trying to silence them, believed in the concept of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", fought for people to have ideas of their own no matter how repulsive. Progressives have overtaken the left and that circle is reaching all the way around to grains of fascism. The attempt to control and suppress ideas is gaining traction. Liberals would be absolutely against that.
 
Ichinisan said:
That's a common misunderstanding.

Kiddie porn, well yeah because it violates the rights of a child that had no real choice.

Any other kind of porn? Obscenities? Nope. Government doesn't restrict that. Only the FCC restricts free public / unencrypted broadcast.

What regulations are there against "fighting words?" You're allowed to say them, and in some cases a threatened person could be justified in attacking you. Fighting words are not forbidden.

False advertising is simple theft by deception. That's not restricting free speech at all. If a false advertisement didn't cause you to lose money or time, or cause you any other kind of loss, you probably can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...

What about if your free speech is about how all Jews are masterminds bent on global enslavement, and all blacks are violent criminal thugs, and all Muslims are radical terrorists devoted to forcing Christians under Sharia law? And this speech spreads so that people in those groups are murdered and/or subjugated?
Is that speech still just 'ideas' that doesn't cause any harm?

One of the great failures in this alt-right philosophy is that freedom should exist without moral constraint or ethical responsibility. It's why that movement embraces trolls who do nothing but tell lies for fun, like the OP. Or imagines that their free speech is so important that there should there be no reasonable societal constraints upon their speech, that their speech is somehow infringed when others speak back to disagree, or choose to voluntarily disassociate themselves.

The reason we're having this discussion is because no right can long exist when its abuse is tolerated. IOW, there would be none of this speech of curtailing free speech if people weren't being irresponsible with their right to free speech. Alt-right trolls continue to insist this about speech others disagree with, but disagreement has nothing to do with another shot up synagogue or mosque. It's about a failure to act responsibly.

I will now wait for some douchebag to call this virtue signaling or some BS like that.
 
Vic said:
The tell-tale sign of a troll is they tend to assume that their lies are real, and thus that people are upset at them for have been exposed, rather than it's because they're just telling lies, making false accusations, and other discussing in bad faith.
Click to expand...

ok, now without using any more personal attacks or making up stuff I didn't say and then trying to justify your opinion with it

Can you make valid point about the topic at hand
and say if you agree or disagree that the First amendment should be edited to cover these areas?
(I already asked if the Title was changed to "CBS Anchor laments - can't we edit The First Amendment" would make you happier )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top