End The First Amendment???

[JakeStarkey]

Ask almost any minority, including women.

Neither Canada nor England are covered by our Constitution

Strangely enough....neither are we.

Not since King FDR the 1st......

We follow the Constitution more closely after FDR than we did before

Ask any black American

 

[PoliticalChic]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment

Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” » The Right Scoop -

 

[rightwinger]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment

Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” » The Right Scoop -

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither Canada nor England are covered by our Constitution

Strangely enough....neither are we.

Not since King FDR the 1st......

We follow the Constitution more closely after FDR than we did before

Ask any black American

The only way you could, in honesty, claim that, would be if you were totally ignorant of history...

...so here is the tutorial you so richly require:


1. Some believe that there are three co-equal branches of government, yet, under FDR, that was only intermittently true. The Supreme Court, for example, upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.


b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


c. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..” Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.


d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts? That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.” “While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.


e. So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action. Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 9


f. In 1937, the court buckled and ceased to act as the guardian of economic liberty, and as a limit on the extension of federal government power. It now upheld many New Deal measures.
King FDR the 1st.

The end of the late, great United States Constitution.



OK....now you can do one of your 'is not, is not' posts......

 

[PoliticalChic]

You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment

Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” » The Right Scoop -

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

 

[rightwinger]

Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” » The Right Scoop -

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

 

[daveman]

They arrested the person for violating his probation.

Stop lying.

And that's the reason he got the attention???



You Lefties never seem able to connect the dots unless the NYTimes tells you to....

When you use 4 or 5 different names in public in a month and you are on probation from doing so, then the fire is started by oneself, blaming someone else is an old addicts ruse.

Oh, you mean like Obama blaming the film when the film was not to blame?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

A President of the United States does not criticize citizens for critiquing any religion.

And his inordinate sensitivity to this, and only this, particular religion, gives one cause to wonder.

Oh....not you....I was referring to those who support American rights and values.

 

[daveman]

You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment

Psstt....just between the two of us....there's nothing that this President could say or do that would make you step out of line of Lock-step Liberals...is there......including this:



"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

...out of the mouth of this president before, but to hear him abandon our American values so quickly in front of world leaders and suggest that slandering the Prophet of Islam is something that should be condemned? Are you kidding me?"
HOLY CRAP! Obama tells the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” » The Right Scoop -

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

Can you find a similar quote from The One saying "The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus Christ, the Son of God"?

Yeah, I can't, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Neither Canada nor England are covered by our Constitution

Strangely enough....neither are we.

Not since King FDR the 1st......

We follow the Constitution more closely after FDR than we did before

Ask any black American

You are an ignorant fellow....a favorable characteristic for a reliable Democrat voter...

I'm amused by this:
"Ask any black American."

Do you know who FDR's first Supreme Court nominee was?

Hugo Black was his first, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU


Think that was a wise choice?
"Ask any black American."


...then ask any Japanese American.

 

[daveman]

"Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

You have a problem with that?

You are truly a sick bitch

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

Does that include property damage?

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a “liberal Muslim,” sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

“Do you have a right to do this?” Hall asked.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy said. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”​

Idiot moonbat.

 

[rightwinger]

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

A President of the United States does not criticize citizens for critiquing any religion.

And his inordinate sensitivity to this, and only this, particular religion, gives one cause to wonder.

Oh....not you....I was referring to those who support American rights and values.

Our President makes a stand against hate speech

Like all true Americans should

 

[rightwinger]

Once you descend to that language, I know I've been proven correct, and you know it.



Free speech means that one can say what soever they choose, without a scolding by the President of the United States.

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

Does that include property damage?

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a “liberal Muslim,” sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

“Do you have a right to do this?” Hall asked.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy said. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”​

Idiot moonbat.

Nice cut and paste

Too bad it is not relevant

 

[daveman]

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

A President of the United States does not criticize citizens for critiquing any religion.

And his inordinate sensitivity to this, and only this, particular religion, gives one cause to wonder.

Oh....not you....I was referring to those who support American rights and values.

Our President makes a stand against hate speech

Like all true Americans should

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall and the American Right

I disapprove of what you say, so you should be prevented from saying it and punished if you do say it.
-- The American Left

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

A President of the United States does not criticize citizens for critiquing any religion.

And his inordinate sensitivity to this, and only this, particular religion, gives one cause to wonder.

Oh....not you....I was referring to those who support American rights and values.

Our President makes a stand against hate speech

Like all true Americans should

Only mindless dolts who need to back any thing he says or does....on pain of losing their progressive-creds.

American Presidents stand up for the First Amendment.

....then there's you, Obama, and Neville Chamberlain.

Nothing worth standing for?

 

[daveman]

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

Does that include property damage?

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a “liberal Muslim,” sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

“Do you have a right to do this?” Hall asked.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy said. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”​

Idiot moonbat.

Nice cut and paste

Too bad it is not relevant

It's amazingly relevant. The poster-defacer expressed her opinion, and faced the consequences for it.

But it surprised her:

Eltahawy responded with profanity and "seemed stunned when an NYPD officer and an MTA cop arrived momentarily after and put cuffs on her."​

What a moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first amendment says nothing of the kind. You are free to say what you want.....you are also free to face the consequences

Including universal condemnation

Does that include property damage?

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a “liberal Muslim,” sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

“Do you have a right to do this?” Hall asked.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy said. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”​

Idiot moonbat.

Nice cut and paste

Too bad it is not relevant

You mean that you don't realize that every word you write is 'cut and paste' from the NYTimes and the DNC ....you just plagiarize by not giving the credit.

 

[rightwinger]

The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation

 

[rightwinger]

Does that include property damage?

Pundit for MSNBC, CNN, arrested after vandalizing anti-jihad poster in New York - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

According to the Post, Eltahawy, who describes herself as a “liberal Muslim,” sprayed pink paint on a sign that calls enemies of Israel "savages."

While others watched her deface the sign, Pamela Hall, identified by the Post as "a Manhattan mom who supports the message of the ads," rushed to stop Eltahawy.

“Do you have a right to do this?” Hall asked.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy said. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this [the ad] is freedom of expression.”​

Idiot moonbat.

Nice cut and paste

Too bad it is not relevant

You mean that you don't realize that every word you write is 'cut and paste' from the NYTimes and the DNC ....you just plagiarize by not giving the credit.

Link

 

[PoliticalChic]

The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation

"Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech

Obama administration initially denied the attacks had anything to do with 9/11 but instead attributed them to free expression in America, in the form of a crudely-made, months-old “film” on YouTube.com (“Innocence of Muslims”) which mocks Mohammad, the alleged “prophet” of Muslims. Prior to the 9/11 assaults the Obama administration failed to sufficiently arm Marines at its embassies, and since then it has failed to avenge the murders and vandalism, while also openly undermining the American commitment to free expression."
Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech - Forbes