It is time for a conversation about the 1st Amendment

[Quantum Windbag]

Said much better than I would.

In the aftermath of each of the most significant mass killings – San Diego, Calif. 1984 (21 killed, 19 injured); Killeen, Texas 1991 (23 Killed, 20 wounded); Columbine, Colo. 1999 (13 killed, 21 injured); Blacksburg, Va. 2007 (32 killed, 25 injured); Fort Hood, Texas 2009 (13 killed, 29 wounded); Aurora, Colo. 2012 (12 killed, 58 injured); Newtown, Conn. 2012 (26 killed, 20 age seven or under) – supposed advocates for "free speech" have repeated that the "answer" is more speech, rather than the most moderate form of sensible and media control. This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.
The logic is simple. Any clown with a cheap digital camera and an internet account can create a movie offensive to billions, and we must accept that as fact, no matter how many are killed as a result. Because Youtube, and Xbox Live, are out there, the only way to stop such crime is to ensure the availability of cheap internet video for those who are responsible and who will therefore use them for good. If more so-called "speech" were in the hands of those who would deter such attacks, then there would be a reduced incidence of crime or, at a minimum, a possibility of stopping such massacres in action. So the answer to violent media is more "speech," not less, just as in the context of the Second Amendment, the answer to government tyranny is more guns, not less.
No doubt this argument has a certain internal logic, but it is hardly uncommon for seemingly logical arguments to rest on a false premise. The false premise here is easily identified: the First Amendment "right" to "speech" will, of its own force, allow argument by people who would use their voices to protect our children against such abominations as "The Matrix." And yet, if those who favor media control must take as given the accessibility of cameras, computers, even such quaint devices as typewriters, surely First Amendment enthusiasts must also take as given that for good reason, or just as a matter of personal sensibility, many, or even most, law abiding citizens will continue to opt against exercising this right, or consuming such media.
As a result, it cannot be assumed that more and more "speech" or "press freedom" is somehow the panacea, or even a counterweight, to the onslaught of violence in our society. At a minimum, this reality check serves as a cogent response to arguments against regulating access to the sorts of media that have no legitimate connection to art or ideas, but that led directly in Newtown, Columbine, and Blacksburg to the most horrifically violent massacres, massacres in which "the Press" spread the killers' names, and fame, to the high heavens.

It's Time For A Conversation About The First Amendment | Popehat

 

[Mac1958]

This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.

First Amendment purist here. And I like it just the way it is. As I've droned on and on about before -- but what the hell, I'll do it again -- I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them. The First Amendment provides all that information for me, daily, loud and clear.

But to address the piece directly, I've highlighted the key word, above. I think that virtually all of our problems can be traced to a culture that's in decay, and this is an example. The culture of the media, not to mention our society in general, needs to be engaged, changed and improved. That's a massively heavier lift than just making or changing laws -- which is nothing more than a band-aid -- but it would be organic and real.

How does that happen? Slowly but surely, one at a time, people have to be brave and principled enough to start saying, "no, I'm not going to do that", or "we're no longer going to practice that kind of journalism in this newsroom", and they have to be pointed out and celebrated loudly, nationally. That's how it starts, anyway.

We need to change the culture, across the board, before it's too late, in many areas. Band-aids will not be enough.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

 

[Sunni Man]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

 

[squinch]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

You speak of decadence and unfettered immorality as if they're bad things.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's time to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. That's what liberals really mean.

 

[squinch]

It's time to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. That's what liberals really mean.

I favor repealing the Bill of Rights for conservatives and republicans. The forefathers intended that the Bill of Rights apply only to humans.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

Ummm.....no

HELL NO

 

[BlindBoo]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Frankly, I don't see that restriction on the first amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.

First Amendment purist here. And I like it just the way it is. As I've droned on and on about before -- but what the hell, I'll do it again -- I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them. The First Amendment provides all that information for me, daily, loud and clear.

But to address the piece directly, I've highlighted the key word, above. I think that virtually all of our problems can be traced to a culture that's in decay, and this is an example. The culture of the media, not to mention our society in general, needs to be engaged, changed and improved. That's a massively heavier lift than just making or changing laws -- which is nothing more than a band-aid -- but it would be organic and real.

How does that happen? Slowly but surely, one at a time, people have to be brave and principled enough to start saying, "no, I'm not going to do that", or "we're no longer going to practice that kind of journalism in this newsroom", and they have to be pointed out and celebrated loudly, nationally. That's how it starts, anyway.

We need to change the culture, across the board, before it's too late, in many areas. Band-aids will not be enough.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Bravo.

Strangely enough, a lot of people that feel that way about the 1st think the 2nd is in need of serious revision.

 

[Avorysuds]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

lol, free speech means only what you want to allow? Interesting....

 

[Avorysuds]

So called "Freedom of Speech" was instituted by our founding fathers to protect the average citizens right to criticise the government, both in public and private, without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.

But the courts over the years morphed it into all forms of speech; including hate speech and all forms of pornography.

Until we stop this insanity, and bring free speech back to the original intent of the founding fathers.

Our nation will continue to spiral downward into the abyss of decadence and unfettered immorality.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Frankly, I don't see that restriction on the first amendment.

Yup, and this is why Republicans and Democrats scare the shit out of people, they both want absolute control as long as they agree with it, fuck the constitution unless it happens to agree with them that given day.

 

[Meathead]

This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.

First Amendment purist here. And I like it just the way it is. As I've droned on and on about before -- but what the hell, I'll do it again -- I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them. The First Amendment provides all that information for me, daily, loud and clear.

But to address the piece directly, I've highlighted the key word, above. I think that virtually all of our problems can be traced to a culture that's in decay, and this is an example. The culture of the media, not to mention our society in general, needs to be engaged, changed and improved. That's a massively heavier lift than just making or changing laws -- which is nothing more than a band-aid -- but it would be organic and real.

How does that happen? Slowly but surely, one at a time, people have to be brave and principled enough to start saying, "no, I'm not going to do that", or "we're no longer going to practice that kind of journalism in this newsroom", and they have to be pointed out and celebrated loudly, nationally. That's how it starts, anyway.

We need to change the culture, across the board, before it's too late, in many areas. Band-aids will not be enough.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Who, where and what are key words?! Perhaps grammatically, Btw wtf are you talking about?!

 

[Mac1958]

This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.

First Amendment purist here. And I like it just the way it is. As I've droned on and on about before -- but what the hell, I'll do it again -- I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking, and who agrees with them. The First Amendment provides all that information for me, daily, loud and clear.

But to address the piece directly, I've highlighted the key word, above. I think that virtually all of our problems can be traced to a culture that's in decay, and this is an example. The culture of the media, not to mention our society in general, needs to be engaged, changed and improved. That's a massively heavier lift than just making or changing laws -- which is nothing more than a band-aid -- but it would be organic and real.

How does that happen? Slowly but surely, one at a time, people have to be brave and principled enough to start saying, "no, I'm not going to do that", or "we're no longer going to practice that kind of journalism in this newsroom", and they have to be pointed out and celebrated loudly, nationally. That's how it starts, anyway.

We need to change the culture, across the board, before it's too late, in many areas. Band-aids will not be enough.

Long live the First Amendment.

.

Who, where and what are key words?! Perhaps grammatically, Btw wtf are you talking about?!

I have absolutely no idea what that means. Could you try again?

.