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.
Words can be a very good thing, or a bad thing, depending on how they are used.
True, but unlike a gun words are not weapons. I don't mind idiots spreading their idiocy all over the media, so people can see that they are idiots. What I do mind is an idiot firing his full automatic assault rifle into a crowd, which I admit is just as insane.
However the difference here is that in the 1st case you've elected that idiot to be your president and the latter resulted in the latest mass-shooting
Then again your president can still start WWIII over losing a Twitter-war with Rocketman in North Korea.
So, what do I know? Right?
True, but unlike a gun words are not weapons. I don't mind idiots spreading their idiocy all over the media, so people can see that they are idiots. What I do mind is an idiot firing his full automatic assault rifle into a crowd, which I admit is just as insane.
However the difference here is that in the 1st case you've elected that idiot to be your president and the latter resulted in the latest mass-shooting
Then again your president can still start WWIII over losing a Twitter-war with Rocketman in North Korea.
So, what do I know? Right?
You don't think that words can not be used as a weapon, "your spouse comes to you and ask do I look good in this outfit, and you respond with NO you look like a F** Bast*rd, and you are a piece of Sh**.
Those are very damaging words.
You don't think that words and a pictures could not be used as a weapon, "What if I took a picture of you with a young child, and then used photo editing software and removed the child's cloths, and released that picture on the Internet, now you in the eyes of every one else are in to Kiddy Porn." You could loose your job, you could face criminal charges. And quite easily loose your spouse when you have done nothing wrong.
Words can be almost as damaging as a physical weapon when used in the wrong way.
You don't think that words can not be used as a weapon, "your spouse comes to you and ask do I look good in this outfit, and you respond with NO you look like a F** Bast*rd, and you are a piece of Sh**.
Those are very damaging words.
You don't think that words and a pictures could not be used as a weapon, "What if I took a picture of you with a young child, and then used photo editing software and removed the child's cloths, and released that picture on the Internet, now you in the eyes of every one else are in to Kiddy Porn." You could loose your job, you could face criminal charges. And quite easily loose your spouse when you have done nothing wrong.
Words can be almost as damaging as a physical weapon when used in the wrong way.
The key word is almost, when words kill 50 plus, and wound 500 then we have something, besides look at all the crap protestors get from repubs, hell its a topic on top of this forum. Everyone wants to decipher our for fathers words to fit their own agenda.
I believe in the Bill of Rights, including the 4th, but that’s another one repubs would throw out if they could. Everyone has their own opinions, and they should, but infringing on someone’s rights because they look illegal, is still infringing on their rights, and I’m against illegals more than most.
The key word is almost, when words kill 50 plus, and wound 500 then we have something, besides look at all the crap protestors get from repubs, hell its a topic on top of this forum. Everyone wants to decipher our for fathers words to fit their own agenda.
I believe in the Bill of Rights, including the 4th, but that’s another one repubs would throw out if they could. Everyone has their own opinions, and they should, but infringing on someone’s rights because they look illegal, is still infringing on their rights, and I’m against illegals more than most.
I fully understand the difference between words and weapons. In a dictatorship, the words KILL THESE PEOPLE, would be followed with the execution of whoever was offending the ruler. Now granted the ruler did not physically kill someone with their own hands. But their actions and words did.
But to simply think that just because it was only words they are not as impacting or damaging as a physical weapon, it naïve. To an innocent man "Guilty as Charged" can be as fatal as any weapon could be.
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.
You know Hitler and Stalin suppressed freedom of speech and killed millions for exercising free speech.
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.
Be careful about this. If you want to go this direction, saying "not my president" or "f Trump" could get you charged with a federal crime and a prison sentence.
Let's examine the first amendment...
Computers, tablets, cell phones, didn't exist in the late 1700s.
Would you be willing to apply and pay for passport photos, fingerprinting, and a permit to use the Internet to share your opinion or your beliefs?
Would you require a background check before purchase of a modern device?
Would you propose a psyche evaluation since the times have changed?
Let's examine roe v wade.
Would you want psych evaluations made to have access to abortion?
Would you require a background check?
Would you require finger printing and pass port photo to be taken?
Would you demand a national registry of those who had abortions?
Skirt HIPAA since we're dealing with a privelege that may result in death?
Let's examine the 4th ammendment.
Would you require a permit to keep overzealous officers from just randomly pulling you over and searching your vehicle? Or frisking you on the street and searching your person?
Let's examine the 5th ammendment.
Would you require a psych evaluation background check etc in order to exercise your 5th ammendment rights to not implicate oneself in crime?
Let's examine the 6th ammendment.
Do you want to restrict the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers?
Require a permit for it?
A background check for it?
A psych evaluation for it?
Limitations on how many trials you may have until raising a red flag and a bureaucracy with federal power and authority busts down your door?
Let's examine the 7th ammendment...
Better yet how about the 8th ammendment.
Without a permit, finger prints, and background check you are subjected to excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment. Without the permit to allow you the right to fair bail and fair treatment, police can beat the snot out of you when questioning. Hold you in a cell and torture you? And that's before you even make it to court. You're a suspect in some sort of crime afterall... no more innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Guilty until proven innocent. That is of course you pass a background check and have had a passport photo taken, finger prints taken, paid for the finger printing photographing and permit fee. Oh and pass a psych evaluation...
I feel if you are found guilty of rape you should have your privates removed. Without anesthesia. 8th ammendment prevents that from being carried out, but what happens in the showers, poetic justice, may or may not happen. I wouldn't know. I've never committed a crime more than a speeding ticket.
I can go on with every single ammendment and apply the same current and proposed legislation using the same feeble argument of well that didn't exist in 1794.
Well this didn't happen in 1794.
This the Pandora box you seek to open when you go attacking, restricting, and condemning something different that you don't like.
Limits of free speech in most countries mainly relate to terrorist content or recruitment, inciting violence and inciting fear through credible threats, such as threats to kill, whilst stalking and harassment laws may also be used in extreme cases.
In terms of the Civil Law, libel and slander also protect individuals reputations in relation to malicious falsehoods.
Quote:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression - European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
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.
Best responce I have heard to a post in probably 6 month, Excellent couldn't rep you again.
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.
This old argument is tired and worn. Nice try.
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.
True, but unlike a gun words are not weapons. I don't mind idiots spreading their idiocy all over the media, so people can see that they are idiots. What I do mind is an idiot firing his full automatic assault rifle into a crowd, which I admit is just as insane. 
Then again your president can still start WWIII over losing a Twitter-war with Rocketman in North Korea.
