CA Democrat Says He'd Love To Be Able To Regulate Content Of Speech

[mudwhistle]

Democrats are busy regulating speech everywhere else. Why not create laws that allows them to do so. Well this is wishful thinking for Democrats. They've figured out how to regulate speech by using Twitter and Facebook to attack people for what they said 6 years ago as teenager, and by banning conservative accounts. But more and more Democrats are hoping that the day will come that you won't be allowed to say what is the truth in public.

Tucker Carlson responded to a California Democrat who said Wednesday that he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" but that the First Amendment disallows the practice.

Rep. Ted Lieu, who represents Torrance and West Hollywood, was discussing the hearing involving the CEO of Google and the debate over whether tech companies operate with a political bent.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech," Lieu told anchor Brianna Keilar.

However, Lieu then clarified his intended point, saying that he would ask private companies to regulate their content, but said the government should not play that role.
Carlson said the first freedom given citizens by America's founders is the right to free speech.

"Increasingly it is seen by our people in charge as an annoying relic," he said. "[Just] say something unauthorized in your workplace or on campus."

He said that Lieu's comments are indicative of the assertion that "the attitudes of our leaders have changed."

Carlson blasted Lieu's remark, saying the congressman was being "prevented from banning talk he doesn't like by a pesky legal antique."

Links

WATCH: Tucker Rips Rep. Ted Lieu for Saying He'd 'Love to Regulate Content of Speech'

TRUE COLORS: California Rep. Says He’d ‘Love to Regulate Speech’ but First Amendment ‘Prevents’ Him | Sean Hannity​

 

[Mac1958]

Sure, the Regressive Left would like to ban forms of speech that they don't like, but hopefully they won't be able to.

Instead, they'll just keep doing it through the culture, by issuing "consequences" for speech they don't like.

They mock freedom of expression by saying "I'm going to use my freedom of speech to shut down yours".

They are not liberals. Liberals defend ALL speech.
.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

 

[mudwhistle]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

 

[Meathead]

Democrats are busy regulating speech everywhere else. Why not create laws that allows them to do so. Well this is wishful thinking for Democrats. They've figured out how to regulate speech by using Twitter and Facebook to attack people for what they said 6 years ago as teenager, and by banning conservative accounts. But more and more Democrats are hoping that the day will come that you won't be allowed to say what is the truth in public.

Tucker Carlson responded to a California Democrat who said Wednesday that he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" but that the First Amendment disallows the practice.

Rep. Ted Lieu, who represents Torrance and West Hollywood, was discussing the hearing involving the CEO of Google and the debate over whether tech companies operate with a political bent.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech," Lieu told anchor Brianna Keilar.

However, Lieu then clarified his intended point, saying that he would ask private companies to regulate their content, but said the government should not play that role.
Carlson said the first freedom given citizens by America's founders is the right to free speech.

"Increasingly it is seen by our people in charge as an annoying relic," he said. "[Just] say something unauthorized in your workplace or on campus."

He said that Lieu's comments are indicative of the assertion that "the attitudes of our leaders have changed."

Carlson blasted Lieu's remark, saying the congressman was being "prevented from banning talk he doesn't like by a pesky legal antique."

Links

WATCH: Tucker Rips Rep. Ted Lieu for Saying He'd 'Love to Regulate Content of Speech'

TRUE COLORS: California Rep. Says He’d ‘Love to Regulate Speech’ but First Amendment ‘Prevents’ Him | Sean Hannity​

Saw that. To quote, "I would love to regulate free speech ... "

Unbelievable! This is at the root of Democratic Socialism.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats are busy regulating speech everywhere else. Why not create laws that allows them to do so. Well this is wishful thinking for Democrats. They've figured out how to regulate speech by using Twitter and Facebook to attack people for what they said 6 years ago as teenager, and by banning conservative accounts. But more and more Democrats are hoping that the day will come that you won't be allowed to say what is the truth in public.

Tucker Carlson responded to a California Democrat who said Wednesday that he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" but that the First Amendment disallows the practice.

Rep. Ted Lieu, who represents Torrance and West Hollywood, was discussing the hearing involving the CEO of Google and the debate over whether tech companies operate with a political bent.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech," Lieu told anchor Brianna Keilar.

However, Lieu then clarified his intended point, saying that he would ask private companies to regulate their content, but said the government should not play that role.
Carlson said the first freedom given citizens by America's founders is the right to free speech.

"Increasingly it is seen by our people in charge as an annoying relic," he said. "[Just] say something unauthorized in your workplace or on campus."

He said that Lieu's comments are indicative of the assertion that "the attitudes of our leaders have changed."

Carlson blasted Lieu's remark, saying the congressman was being "prevented from banning talk he doesn't like by a pesky legal antique."

Links

WATCH: Tucker Rips Rep. Ted Lieu for Saying He'd 'Love to Regulate Content of Speech'

TRUE COLORS: California Rep. Says He’d ‘Love to Regulate Speech’ but First Amendment ‘Prevents’ Him | Sean Hannity​

Saw that. To quote, "I would love to regulate free speech ... "

Unbelievable! This is at the root of Democratic Socialism.

Is that who made laws curtailing free speech of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

 

[Meathead]

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

When you feel pressure, stop pushing in the Q-tip.

This is as stupid as your bulls being cows comment.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

You're taking a position that stopping Twitter from doing it is regulating free speech, when of course it is the opposite.
Stopping Twitter from banning accounts because of conservative speech is a legal matter, which can be handled in the courts, as is slander and liable.
Twitter, Google, and Facebook all claimed in front of Congress it's not going on. If they were under oath this would be perjury.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

You're taking a position that stopping Twitter from doing it is regulating free speech, when of course it is the opposite.
Stopping Twitter from banning accounts because of conservative speech is a legal matter, which can be handled in the courts, as is slander and liable.
Twitter, Google, and Facebook all claimed in front of Congress it's not going on. If they were under oath this would be perjury.

I can't go into a church full of folks on Sunday morning and talk about gay porn from the pulpit...

 

[DandyDonovan]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

You're taking a position that stopping Twitter from doing it is regulating free speech, when of course it is the opposite.
Stopping Twitter from banning accounts because of conservative speech is a legal matter, which can be handled in the courts, as is slander and liable.
Twitter, Google, and Facebook all claimed in front of Congress it's not going on. If they were under oath this would be perjury.

I can't go into a church full of folks on Sunday morning and talk about gay porn from the pulpit...

That has zero do to with the first Amendent

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well, he just increased his appeal to anywhere between 50 and a hundred posters here give or take all the sock accounts they run .

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Can you show me any legislation where Democrats have curtailed free speech?

I don't have to. That's not the issue.
This guy simply wishes he could.
I remember when Obama said he wished he could grant amnesty, but said he couldn't.
Then he went ahead and did it anyway. DACA

When will yous guys make up your minds on the issue since there are complaints about conservatives getting muted on social media then a guy says he would like to stop the practice but thinks govt. shouldn't be the ones to make them do it and yous guys hate that idea also...

You're taking a position that stopping Twitter from doing it is regulating free speech, when of course it is the opposite.
Stopping Twitter from banning accounts because of conservative speech is a legal matter, which can be handled in the courts, as is slander and liable.
Twitter, Google, and Facebook all claimed in front of Congress it's not going on. If they were under oath this would be perjury.

I can't go into a church full of folks on Sunday morning and talk about gay porn from the pulpit...

 

[tycho1572]

California democrats also want to tax text messages.

Democrats are always looking for new ways to silence speech and dig deeper into the pockets of people working to support their families.

They really are a disgusting group of individuals.

 

[Pilot1]

This is why the Left constantly pushes the concept of HATE SPEECH. It is to censor speech, and ideas in which they DISAGREE. It violates the 1A.

 

[saveliberty]

I can't go into a church full of folks on Sunday morning and talk about gay porn from the pulpit...

Sure you can, for a brief period of time....then there are consequences.

 

[McRocket]

Sure, the Regressive Left would like to ban forms of speech that they don't like, but hopefully they won't be able to.

Instead, they'll just keep doing it through the culture, by issuing "consequences" for speech they don't like.

They mock freedom of expression by saying "I'm going to use my freedom of speech to shut down yours".

They are not liberals. Liberals defend ALL speech.
.

Give me a break.

What about conservatives screaming when NFL players took knees during the national anthem?

They were not saying - 'we don't like this. Boo to you.' (which is fine).

They WERE saying - 'we don't like this - we are going to force you to stop it.'

Conservative Free Speech Hypocrisy


And the same thing happens when cons see people burning/urinating on a flag or insulting the military. They don't just voice their displeasure - they do what they can to muzzle it. Often by force.


Both sides are guilty of trying to restrict free speech...to varying extents.

The left is usually (seemingly) for PC stuff. The right is usually more about 'patriotic' stuff (well, that is what they call it).

But to say only one side does it - especially the left - is monumentally wrong.

 

[beautress]

Americans of the eighteenth century defended free speech because they relied on what they knew their fellow man knew--that you may deliver your conscience that was built on courteous demands of their education system that demanded social courtesy uber alles. Considering that 4-letter words that were taboo in the year of my birth, are now a major means of getting across a point today, and that would shock the founders if they had to live around that kind of speech 24-7 like we do today. And even though it seems like free speech has few demands on it, it actually has more demands due to academia's new attitude. For example, I see people freely calling one another retards and morons, but using the n-word can get you banned from the internet for life. I see people touting "the village" they claim is how to raise children, which is actually the precept behind communism and has had dismal results in past societies. But "village" references are okay, but calling a communist a communist can also get one banned in some areas, and is even defended by some who are the product of current Academia.

Since common sense governed life as the Colonials knew it, there was no need to throw someone into jail for speech, because people just didn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it would have been disapproved in the world of etiquette colonial folks lived in, except if they were Pirates of the Caribbean, that is. <giggle>

My grandmother's attitude toward inappropriate speech had some smarts sewn into it. She merely chalked off stupid speech as someone "saying more than they think." You got the message of what was and was not okay in her presence. <more giggling> And every youngster in the family who was in grandma's charge for more than an hour had probably tasted of the little switches she snatched off the willow tree with a couple of long leaves left on the end for stinging purposes. Nobody spoke like a sailor in her presence and got away with it.

I bless my grandmother's dear heart and courage to deal with ragamuffins experimenting with stupid speech.

Edit: I guess what I am saying is that free speech isn't what it used to be, or is it?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Democrats are busy regulating speech everywhere else. Why not create laws that allows them to do so. Well this is wishful thinking for Democrats. They've figured out how to regulate speech by using Twitter and Facebook to attack people for what they said 6 years ago as teenager, and by banning conservative accounts. But more and more Democrats are hoping that the day will come that you won't be allowed to say what is the truth in public.

Tucker Carlson responded to a California Democrat who said Wednesday that he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" but that the First Amendment disallows the practice.

Rep. Ted Lieu, who represents Torrance and West Hollywood, was discussing the hearing involving the CEO of Google and the debate over whether tech companies operate with a political bent.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech," Lieu told anchor Brianna Keilar.

However, Lieu then clarified his intended point, saying that he would ask private companies to regulate their content, but said the government should not play that role.
Carlson said the first freedom given citizens by America's founders is the right to free speech.

"Increasingly it is seen by our people in charge as an annoying relic," he said. "[Just] say something unauthorized in your workplace or on campus."

He said that Lieu's comments are indicative of the assertion that "the attitudes of our leaders have changed."

Carlson blasted Lieu's remark, saying the congressman was being "prevented from banning talk he doesn't like by a pesky legal antique."

Links

WATCH: Tucker Rips Rep. Ted Lieu for Saying He'd 'Love to Regulate Content of Speech'

TRUE COLORS: California Rep. Says He’d ‘Love to Regulate Speech’ but First Amendment ‘Prevents’ Him | Sean Hannity​

I think people who would ban all liberal speech don't have a right to complain about this.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats are busy regulating speech everywhere else. Why not create laws that allows them to do so. Well this is wishful thinking for Democrats. They've figured out how to regulate speech by using Twitter and Facebook to attack people for what they said 6 years ago as teenager, and by banning conservative accounts. But more and more Democrats are hoping that the day will come that you won't be allowed to say what is the truth in public.

Tucker Carlson responded to a California Democrat who said Wednesday that he would "love to be able to regulate the content of speech" but that the First Amendment disallows the practice.

Rep. Ted Lieu, who represents Torrance and West Hollywood, was discussing the hearing involving the CEO of Google and the debate over whether tech companies operate with a political bent.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech," Lieu told anchor Brianna Keilar.

However, Lieu then clarified his intended point, saying that he would ask private companies to regulate their content, but said the government should not play that role.
Carlson said the first freedom given citizens by America's founders is the right to free speech.

"Increasingly it is seen by our people in charge as an annoying relic," he said. "[Just] say something unauthorized in your workplace or on campus."

He said that Lieu's comments are indicative of the assertion that "the attitudes of our leaders have changed."

Carlson blasted Lieu's remark, saying the congressman was being "prevented from banning talk he doesn't like by a pesky legal antique."

Links

WATCH: Tucker Rips Rep. Ted Lieu for Saying He'd 'Love to Regulate Content of Speech'

TRUE COLORS: California Rep. Says He’d ‘Love to Regulate Speech’ but First Amendment ‘Prevents’ Him | Sean Hannity​

I think people who would ban all liberal speech don't have a right to complain about this.

Ban liberal speech???

Don't you mean people who allow conservative speech??? Those are the folks you think are banning Liberal speech?