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.
When the founding fathers wrote the original words of the 1st Ammendment, they had no idea how technology would drastically change communications.
With the advent of things like the internet, blogs, FaceBook, and twitter, it is WAY too dangerous to let anyone and everyone have access to communicate so many words, so fast and to so many people all at once. You saw what happened with the spread of all this fake news and how it influenced the election, its just not acceptable.
WHY does anyone need the ability to spew out their words to 100s of millions of people across the world in seconds with just the push of a button. This is irresponsible and dangerous.
The founding fathers never could have seen this coming, we need to ban freedom of speech now, its gotten way out of hand from what they intended.
I don't think that arguments not made in good faith should be allowed to stay up on public forums, such as this. The fact that this thread was allowed to get 6 pages of response is, in my mind, a tragic reflection on how little policing this forum actually receives.
If that counts as a limitation on free speech, then I fully agree.
I don't think that arguments not made in good faith should be allowed to stay up on public forums, such as this. The fact that this thread was allowed to get 6 pages of response is, in my mind, a tragic reflection on how little policing this forum actually receives.
If that counts as a limitation on free speech, then I fully agree.
So essentially my "devils advocate" approach to spurring conversation just isn't palatable to you? Noted.
This is exactly my point. I don't hold this view for either amendment, but for those who hold the view for the 2nd amendment, I want to know why they won't support holding it for the 1st. The hypocrisy and lack of consistent logic makes no sense.
Very good. I did not understand that from the context of the thread I was quoting from.
I have long held the thought, as a licensed attorney since 1984, that even "Bill of Rights" have narrow exceptions.
Indeed, in a prior thread, I argued the 'candy' analogy. In brief, we assumed that an Amendment spoke of the 'right to eat candy'. I argued that if there were 100 types of 'candy', but the Government, for whatever reason, banned some (say 40 percent) of candy, the "People" would still have access to 60 percent of the candy produced. Hence, the candy amendment would still be protected.
Most sane people agree that the First Amendment 'speech' protection has certain limits, such as libel or slander. I have long argued that the 'right to bear arms' is likewise subject to some limitations.
The "government' cannot dictate that 'all arms' are banned. However, I believe that the government may 'ban' certain weapons (military grade weapons).
Very good. I did not understand that from the context of the thread I was quoting from.
I have long held the thought, as a licensed attorney since 1984, that even "Bill of Rights" have narrow exceptions.
Indeed, in a prior thread, I argued the 'candy' analogy. In brief, we assumed that an Amendment spoke of the 'right to eat candy'. I argued that if there were 100 types of 'candy', but the Government, for whatever reason, banned some (say 40 percent) of candy, the "People" would still have access to 60 percent of the candy produced. Hence, the candy amendment would still be protected.
Most sane people agree that the First Amendment 'speech' protection has certain limits, such as libel or slander. I have long argued that the 'right to bear arms' is likewise subject to some limitations.
The "government' cannot dictate that 'all arms' are banned. However, I believe that the government may 'ban' certain weapons (military grade weapons).
Later
Agreed and done already, so using your simply laid out analogy, we are there already for the gun issue.
Nice try, but not a fail at all. See, we have LOTS of people who post here talking about how fake news, social media, and trolls swung the election and how they fear that Trump is going to send us to war, push NK to use their nukes, destroy the environment through regulations so there is clearly a life and death equivalent. You also have a huge issue with people using social media to harass kids who end up killing themselves because they get overwhelmed with messages from their entire class/school, you have ISIS and other hate groups that mass communicate to spread their message, recruit and radicalize people who go on to torture and kill. All of this is accomplished through highly advanced technology that uses mass communication to talk to millions of people with minimal to no regulation across the world at the blink of an eye.
The correlations are clearly there. If you just don't want to see them because you don't like what it means for the gun argument, thats just a failure of basic logic to suit political views.
None of these arguments fly. Those actions you speak of are 'byproducts' of free speech.
People have free will and may choose to act on what they hear, but they don't have to. Turn off the noise. Don't read twitter. Ignore it. Argue against it. Fight it. People act on ideas gleaned from speech. That is their choice--they don't have to.
Bullets tearing through one's body is not a choice. It cannot be turned off or ignored. You cannot turn and walk away if you'll be shot in the back. Someone else is forcing their right to bear and use arms on your right to exist.
It is not the same at all.
Have you not heard that 'Sticks and stones' (and guns with bullets) may break my bones (or kill me), but names can never hurt me.
You do not have the right to hurt or kill others if they have no choice. You have the right to speak all you want--nobody is forced to listen.
When the founding fathers wrote the original words of the 1st Ammendment, they had no idea how technology would drastically change communications.
With the advent of things like the internet, blogs, FaceBook, and twitter, it is WAY too dangerous to let anyone and everyone have access to communicate so many words, so fast and to so many people all at once. You saw what happened with the spread of all this fake news and how it influenced the election, its just not acceptable.
WHY does anyone need the ability to spew out their words to 100s of millions of people across the world in seconds with just the push of a button. This is irresponsible and dangerous.
The founding fathers never could have seen this coming, we need to ban freedom of speech now, its gotten way out of hand from what they intended.
Nothing wrong with the founding fathers. The problem is people like you. Right now we don't have enough freedom of speech. When a football player has to apologize for saying what he thinks such as Cam Newton at the press conference this week, freedom of speech is a thing of the past. He had every right to think what he said and say what he thinks. Neither I nor my husband had any idea what they were talking about. Furthermore we didn't care what they were talking about. People need to get over expecting others to behave the way they think they should. That's the only way to have real freedom of speech. Otherwise everybody is falling all over each other to be politically correct. I find that dangerous. And politically correctness accomplishes nothing but hypricrocy.
None of these arguments fly. Those actions you speak of are 'byproducts' of free speech.
People have free will and may choose to act on what they hear, but they don't have to. Turn off the noise. Don't read twitter. Ignore it. Argue against it. Fight it. People act on ideas gleaned from speech. That is their choice--they don't have to.
Bullets tearing through one's body is not a choice. It cannot be turned off or ignored. You cannot turn and walk away if you'll be shot in the back. Someone else is forcing their right to bear and use arms on your right to exist.
It is not the same at all.
Have you not heard that 'Sticks and stones' (and guns with bullets) may break my bones (or kill me), but names can never hurt me.
You do not have the right to hurt or kill others if they have no choice. You have the right to speak all you want--nobody is forced to listen.
Then by that logic, murders are the "byproduct" of the second amendment. The existence of a gun does not instantly create a dead body, it is a by product of it being mis-used or used in self defense.
Turning off social media or any form of information is a choice YOU can make, but there are 100s - 1,000,000 easily influenced bad actors that are not making that choice and are indeed listening to the words and being swayed who are doing things like joining Isis and killing people. You making the choice doesn't stop those people or their actions that result from digesting the information.
Nothing wrong with the founding fathers. The problem is people like you. Right now we don't have enough freedom of speech. When a football player has to apologize for saying what he thinks such as Cam Newton at the press conference this week, freedom of speech is a thing of the past. He had every right to think what he said and say what he thinks. Neither I nor my husband had any idea what they were talking about. Furthermore we didn't care what they were talking about. People need to get over expecting others to behave the way they think they should. That's the only way to have real freedom of speech. Otherwise everybody is falling all over each other to be politically correct. I find that dangerous. And politically correctness accomplishes nothing but hypricrocy.
Cam Newton's employer (the team and NFL) have every right to penalize him as they wish within the law and whatever his contract may or may not say. Freedom of speech only protects him from the government retaliating against him. His loss of the yogurt sponsorship over it is also not a violation of his freedom of speech as that private company can do as they wish.
That's funny. Guns have become more powerful too but Republicans don't care. The same people screaming Constitution suddenly want to control free speech?
I actually don't, but I figured if one set of logic was going to be used as justification for limiting the 2nd amendment, then why is that same logic not being applied to the 1st amendment. Makes me think it might not be good logic for EITHER amendment, huh?
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.
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.
