« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? 

By: monkeytrots in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Wed, 04 Oct 17 6:15 AM | 294 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21690 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 21688 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Starlight and Mr. Wizard - thanks to both of you. Good posts on the subject.

The three most dangerous attacks currently underway against the First Ammendment; in order of clear and present danger:

1.) Major pushes to criminalize 'hate speech'.

2.) Attempts to regulate the internet - making it legal to remove web-sites that are deemed 'fake', 'hateful', or 'promoting terrorism'. Southern Poverty Law Center is front and center on these efforts. Regulation- absolutely - with near monopoly powers those that control Domain Name Service, domain services, hosting services and other basics needed for pubishing on the internet MUST be treated as public utilities - they can NOT remove any web-site because of content or violating some pull-it-out-your-butt 'user agreement'. The expenses of fighting these bass-turds in civil courts basically strip all but the extremely rich of any protections of our rights in these cases.

A contract is a contract. If we are paying for it - it must be honoured. If a site is to be removed for 'criminal activity' - IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH COURT ACTIONS THAT ARE IN ACCORD with our US Constitution - not by some business that simply 'declares' it to be 'illegal' or in 'violation of policies' - or some government bureaucrat, Law enforcemnt, or even the DOJ ruling it is illegal.

3.) Pushes for declaring who are considered 'valid journalists' for purposes of exercising our Rights to Freedom of the Press. This has very explicit results in civil cases especially where 'journalists' are afforded unequal protection against libel charges vs. non-journalists. Very different standards of evidence, proof, and presumptions of innocence.

Yeah- I know #2 goes against a LOT of the current arguments. Property Rights are just as important to libery as First Ammendment Rights - without Property Rigts - it all fails - and you can kiss the First good-bye as being worthless.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free Speech? What's that?
By: Beldin
in CONSTITUTION
Tue, 03 Oct 17 9:53 PM
Msg. 21688 of 21975

Why? Because Rubio is a mangina who has absolutely no clue what The Constitution says.

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."

Sorry, Marco ... but you and your little libtard and mooslim buddies do not have the right or the authority to define what is or is not free speech. Free speech is just that - free - you have that right, I have that right, and every other American has that right. However, no one has the right to not be offended. If you are offended by what someone else has to say, too bad ... tune them out, turn your back on them, walk away, or civilly exercise your right to free speech and rationally refute their statements. But, you do not get to rescind their First Amendment rights because you got your pajama-boy panties all in a twist over words you do not wish to hear or read.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next