End The First Amendment???

[JakeStarkey]

You mutton headed moron.

Of course the president has a right to criticize stupid talk.

What world do you live in: Libertarian Loonyville?

The president has the right to free speech, just like you and that idiot daveman.

You two hurt Romney's chances with your immaturity.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Ouch...

Is that the best you can do? All those years of education and you are clueless about our First Amendment

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the above is the 1st Amendment understanding of the far right, good, let them express it, so they can be told how stupid they are. Good heavens.

 

[rightwinger]

The First Amendment even protects PCs right to whine

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

That was an ignorant, idiotic article.

The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may restrict and what it may not. Pornography is protected speech, for example, obscenity, not.

But citizens expressing opinions concerning given speech, either elected official or private citizen, including the condemnation of expression one considers offensive or inappropriate, is in no way a ‘First Amendment,’ ‘Free Speech’ issue; it in no way ‘undermines’ free expression, nor does it violate the First Amendment.

Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right to contrive yet another controversy where none exists.

 

[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

That was an ignorant, idiotic article.

The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may restrict and what it may not. Pornography is protected speech, for example, obscenity, not.

But citizens expressing opinions concerning given speech, either elected official or private citizen, including the condemnation of expression one considers offensive or inappropriate, is in no way a ‘First Amendment,’ ‘Free Speech’ issue; it in no way ‘undermines’ free expression, nor does it violate the First Amendment.

Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right to contrive yet another controversy where none exists.

1. "That was an ignorant, idiotic article."
Tell the Leftwing Slate Magazine guys.

2. "The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may...blah, blah, blah..."

If you were a more educate fellow you'd know that constitutional restrictions haven't been a factor since the Progressive Democrat King FDR the 1st ended it.


3. "Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right ..."
You are truly a dunce.

"But, as Slate founder Michael Kinsley said, "an opinion is not a bias." True, but they rhyme. During the week of Feb. 16, Slate's liberal stable of writers..."
The Slight Liberal Bias of Slate Magazine - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


You should stick to what you do best....sweeping up.
You missed a spot.

 

[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

Let's see if you're capable of learning at your age....


"University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner created an Internet sensation yesterday with an article for Slate in which he argued that the United States overvalues free speech.
Unfortunately but predictably, academics seem to be leading the charge against freedom of speech in the wake of the controversy over the video. University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler kicked off the effort with a USA Today editorial calling for the film’s producer to be jailed for angering people on the other side of the world. Posner, a law professor, adds more heft to the argument, but ultimately falls far short of making a solid case that American free expression should be made contingent on the religious beliefs of radical Muslims.

Posner begins by arguing that our reverence for unfettered free speech is misplaced, as the First Amendment did not really come into its own until the second half of the 20th century, and that before that, the U.S. periodically cracked down on “anarchists, socialists, Communists, pacifists, and other dissenters.”

Read more: Eric Posner is wrong about free speech | The Daily Caller

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC continues to babble and blather.

No 1st Amendment problem exists.

Her continual postings here, no matter how junior high in concept, prove it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation

Correct, it only disables government from preempting free expression when such restrictions are found offensive to the Constitution; citizens in and out of government, individuals and organizations, are free to ridicule or condemn one another with impunity, provided such speech not cross the line into defamation/libel.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Let's see if you're capable of learning at your age....


"University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner created an Internet sensation yesterday with an article for Slate in which he argued that the United States overvalues free speech.
Unfortunately but predictably, academics seem to be leading the charge against freedom of speech in the wake of the controversy over the video. University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler kicked off the effort with a USA Today editorial calling for the film’s producer to be jailed for angering people on the other side of the world. Posner, a law professor, adds more heft to the argument, but ultimately falls far short of making a solid case that American free expression should be made contingent on the religious beliefs of radical Muslims.

Posner begins by arguing that our reverence for unfettered free speech is misplaced, as the First Amendment did not really come into its own until the second half of the 20th century, and that before that, the U.S. periodically cracked down on “anarchists, socialists, Communists, pacifists, and other dissenters.”

Read more: Eric Posner is wrong about free speech | The Daily Caller

Damn...is free speech great or what?

Posner and Butler are allowed to print their opinions on the state of our first amendment rights

We even allow Political Chic to cut and paste off of right wing propaganda blogs to her hearts content

 

[peach174]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

 

[thanatos144]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

Then he would have to condemn his own speech.

 

[peach174]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

It's not hate speech.

Does any of this apply to the terrilbe things said and done about Christians?
What would everyone be saying if he said "The Future can not belong to those who slander Christians"?

 

[rightwinger]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

It's not hate speech.

Does any of this apply to the terrilbe things said and done about Christians?
What would everyone be saying if he said "The Future can not belong to those who slander Christians"?

Hate speech is hate speech. Same would apply to those who slander blacks or gays

Why does the right get so upset if someone defends Islam?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.

What if I say the Future can not belong to those who slander the Far Right? Would you like that?

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because only the Far Right can use hate speech with impunity, so they believe.

 

[peach174]

No it's not....condemning hate speech does not infringe on the first amendment

It's not hate speech.

Does any of this apply to the terrible things said and done about Christians?
What would everyone be saying if he said "The Future can not belong to those who slander Christians"?

Hate speech is hate speech. Same would apply to those who slander blacks or gays

Why does the right get so upset if someone defends Islam?

Blacks slander Whites, Gay's slander straight people, this is acceptable, but when it's the other way around it's hate speech.
Defending Islam, all is freedom of speech.
I noticed that you ignored the questions about Christians.
No one is upset about defending Islam.
Shutting up those who want to say things against peoples religious beliefs, is against freedom of speech.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not hate speech.

Does any of this apply to the terrible things said and done about Christians?
What would everyone be saying if he said "The Future can not belong to those who slander Christians"?

Hate speech is hate speech. Same would apply to those who slander blacks or gays

Why does the right get so upset if someone defends Islam?

Blacks slander Whites, Gay's slander straight people, this is acceptable, but when it's the other way around it's hate speech.
Defending Islam, all is freedom of speech.
I noticed that you ignored the questions about Christians.
No one is upset about defending Islam.
Shutting up those who want to say things against peoples religious beliefs, is against freedom of speech.

First Amendment allows you to speak out against anyone who slanders Christians. Nobody has shut anyone up

Is this a great country or what?

 

[peach174]

You attack free speech when you write that, Peach.

What if I say the Future can not belong to those who slander the Far Right? Would you like that?

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

That is the point Jake.
Our Freedom of speech gives us the right to slander the far right as well as far right has to slander the far left.
What the President said at the U.N. is no one has the right to slander Islam.