The left and Democrats continue to diss the First Amendment (free speech, crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't condone the heavy-handedness of the boycotters and quite frankly do not see any difference between their actions and those, say, of the people who relentlessly argued against the so-called mosque in Lower Manhattan.
This is about as flawed as can be from a logical standpoint.
Private citizens can boycott all they want.
The issue here is government power being used to actively fight against a business based on the opinions of the owners of said business, and people supporting this.
Most Republicans wanted to keep the military policy that forbade gays from openly saying that they are homosexual. And Republicans claim they support free speech?
Most Republicans wanted to keep the military policy that forbade gays from openly saying that they are homosexual. And Republicans claim they support free speech?
"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
Barry Goldwater
I disagree with what the mayor of Chicago and Boston are doing. But they are legal, denying business license because you don't like a business has been going on for years in every city in America.
Don't like liquor stores? Don't approve the license. Don't like strip clubs? Don't approve the license. Don't like head shops, don't approve the license.
Now that liberal mayors are threatening to do the same, NOW Republicans are for free speech? How about you come down to my hometown and tell the mayor we need a liquor store, and other things that you don't support.
Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean you support only speech you agree with, it means you support all speech.
BTW, when has anyone said that Chik Fil A can't openly say whatever they want? They can, they have that legal right. There can still be consequences to your business for your ideals though, and they are now feeling that.
This is also a flawed comparison. Liquor stores, strip club are subject to zoning attacks based on the fact that the city fathers don't like that kind of business. I don't like that kind of zoning attack any more than the attack on Chick Fil A, but it has nothing to do with free speech. In the case of Chick-Fil-A, Mayor Rahm Emanuel admitted that it was being done on the basis of what the company owner has said about gays and gay marriage. Did you read the link by law prof Eugene Volokh? He concludes that this is a 'blatant violation' of the first Amendment.
Did you even watch the video you posted? The R congressman says that he doesn't like the 'ground zero mosque,' but believes that "it can't be stopped because of the First Amendment."
So your own example proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.
Each sides are willing to throw out the constitution when they see fit.
It isn't one political party or the other.
I disagree with what the mayor of Chicago and Boston are doing. But they are legal, denying business license because you don't like a business has been going on for years in every city in America.
Don't like liquor stores? Don't approve the license. Don't like strip clubs? Don't approve the license. Don't like head shops, don't approve the license.
Now that liberal mayors are threatening to do the same, NOW Republicans are for free speech? How about you come down to my hometown and tell the mayor we need a liquor store, and other things that you don't support.
Supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean you support only speech you agree with, it means you support all speech.
BTW, when has anyone said that Chik Fil A can't openly say whatever they want? They can, they have that legal right. There can still be consequences to your business for your ideals though, and they are now feeling that.
Fail. If you can be denied a building permit, jailed, tortured, killed etc ("consequences") for what you say, you no longer have freedom of speech. Otherwise, freedom of speech is omnipresent and there is no way to deny or infringe upon it.
I was saying that the bulk are now on the wrong side of the 1st Amendment. The ACLU is the rare exception. Look at the Chicago/Chick/Fil-A case. You've got a bunch of right wingers and the ACLU on one side; a bunch of lefty protesters and one of the more prominent Dem leaders (Rahm Emanuel) of our times solidly on the other side.
Right wingers on the side of free speech... giggle...
As said before, hate crimes laws aren't speech, they are crimes for actions.
As for radio, radio stations operate in the public interest. The air waves are owned by the government and are licensed to the station for a period of time, in which they are expected to operate in good behavior.
Let's also remember:
Quote:
HOLMES, J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
249 U.S. 47
Schenck v. United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Argued: January 9, 10, 1919 --- Decided: March 3, 1919
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
...
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.
...
Slander and liable is also not protected free speech.
I think the OP is engaging in sloppy thinking about what is protected by the First Amendment and certainly blaming 'liberals' for sensible examples of un-protected speech throughout U.S. legal history is silly, to say the least.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.