New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked!

[Ringel05]

Duplicate

 

[pete]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.


-

You didn't really read tht report, did you?

The problem is it starts somewhere and with them picking and choosing what is what and then later expanding on ... no telling!

 

[Stephanie]

Actually you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

Do you guys even understand that "voter suppression" is and attack on the ultimate free speech right?

On the news, they said in the last 300,000,000 votes counted, there were 86 convictions of voter fraud. Republicans are trying to shave off 5,000,000 Democratic voters before the next election. You may think it's OK because it's only Democrats, but you dumbasses don't get it, you're next. If their policies were good for America, they wouldn't be trying to circumvent our rights.

SURE YOU CAN. it's just that you better be prepared for what happens after you do.
good grief. Funny how you all pick and chose WHEN the people HAVE free speech.

 

[pete]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

you have a right to a facebook account?

I'd like to see the whole report because what I have read so far, in multiple reports, is exactly what is written and how it was presented is shown in these posts. I see no mischaracterazation.
I also know this is not the first time a politician or group of politicians have called for restrictions on free speech as a cure for some real or perceived social ill. It takes all kinds.

Its all in line with what they do and have been doing for years ,, chipping until eventually they have what they want.

 

[The Rabbi]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

How is this direct quote a mischaracterization?

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

Free speech is a fundamental freedom of this country. We have about 200 years of jurisprudence to support that. Surely you know that, "counselor" <snort>
There is no constitutional right not to be offended, you smelly bitch.

 

[Ringel05]

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

you have a right to a facebook account?

I'd like to see the whole report because what I have read so far, in multiple reports, is exactly what is written and how it was presented is shown in these posts. I see no mischaracterazation.
I also know this is not the first time a politician or group of politicians have called for restrictions on free speech as a cure for some real or perceived social ill. It takes all kinds.

Its all in line with what they do and have been doing for years ,, chipping until eventually they have what they want.

If you think I'm only talking about democrats, you're nuts.

 

[Si modo]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

you have a right to a facebook account?

I'd like to see the whole report because what I have read so far, in multiple reports, is exactly what is written and how it was presented is shown in these posts. I see no mischaracterazation.
I also know this is not the first time a politician or group of politicians have called for restrictions on free speech as a cure for some real or perceived social ill. It takes all kinds.

The entire report written by the fascists themselves: http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011.pdf

On p 34, they call explicitly call free speech a privilege and state that's what the Constitution really means, even though the SCOTUS disagrees and has disagreed with that for over 200 years.

So, that is directly from the horse's (or maybe jackass' is more exact) mouth.

 

[Ringel05]

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

you have a right to a facebook account?

I'd like to see the whole report because what I have read so far, in multiple reports, is exactly what is written and how it was presented is shown in these posts. I see no mischaracterazation.
I also know this is not the first time a politician or group of politicians have called for restrictions on free speech as a cure for some real or perceived social ill. It takes all kinds.

The entire report written by the fascists themselves: http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011.pdf

On p 34, they call explicitly call free speech a privilege and state that's what the Constitution really means, even though the SCOTUS disagrees and has disagreed with that for over 200 years.

So, that is directly from the horse's (or maybe jackass' is more exact) mouth.

I know, the left's argument is that the authors are applying the statement in a narrow interpretation concerning cyber-bullying only. I don't read it that way.

 

[The Rabbi]

One has to ask, if the brain dead leftists here are OK with re-characterizing First AMendment rights as "privileges" where does it stop? Is there anything that Big Daddy Government cannot do, "for the public good"? Where do they draw the line to say, we have a right to this and gov't cannot infringe on it?

 

[Si modo]

I'd like to see the whole report because what I have read so far, in multiple reports, is exactly what is written and how it was presented is shown in these posts. I see no mischaracterazation.
I also know this is not the first time a politician or group of politicians have called for restrictions on free speech as a cure for some real or perceived social ill. It takes all kinds.

The entire report written by the fascists themselves: http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011.pdf

On p 34, they call explicitly call free speech a privilege and state that's what the Constitution really means, even though the SCOTUS disagrees and has disagreed with that for over 200 years.

So, that is directly from the horse's (or maybe jackass' is more exact) mouth.

I know, the left's argument is that the authors are applying the statement in a narrow interpretation concerning cyber-bullying only. I don't read it that way.

And I don't read it that way, either. Scratch that - IT doesn't read that way.

This is amazing. A 'privilege'.

 

[FA_Q2]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

Perhaps you missed the part where they declared speech a privilege and not a right. Then again, perhaps you did not and seem to think that they are right.

The idea is asinine. What the hell is 'mean.' That needs FAR more definition. How the hell does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say on the internet. I may not have a 'right' to face book but I sure as hell have a right to be able to express myself using whatever venue that I damn well choose to include the internet whether or not that expression offends someone or is considered 'mean.'

And then there is excluding people? Now I don't have a right to speak but now everyone else has a right to be a part of my group? Where the hell do these people get these asinine ideas?

 

[FA_Q2]

One has to ask, if the brain dead leftists here are OK with re-characterizing First AMendment rights as "privileges" where does it stop? Is there anything that Big Daddy Government cannot do, "for the public good"? Where do they draw the line to say, we have a right to this and gov't cannot infringe on it?

Apparently not. The government can do anything as long as they can find a way to squeeze it into the 'general welfare' definition. Didn't you get the memo? Those are the only two words in the constitution that matter....

 

[konradv]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.

Theres' a big difference between political and non-political speech. All sorts of non-political speech CAN be abridged, trade and national secrets being prime examples. The article talks about non-political speech being abridged, but that doesn't automatically mean poltical speech would be abridged, unless you think the USSC is going to lay down on this issue.

 

[konradv]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

Perhaps you missed the part where they declared speech a privilege and not a right. Then again, perhaps you did not and seem to think that they are right.

The idea is asinine. What the hell is 'mean.' That needs FAR more definition. How the hell does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say on the internet. I may not have a 'right' to face book but I sure as hell have a right to be able to express myself using whatever venue that I damn well choose to include the internet whether or not that expression offends someone or is considered 'mean.'

And then there is excluding people? Now I don't have a right to speak but now everyone else has a right to be a part of my group? Where the hell do these people get these asinine ideas?

Talk about "creating new rights"!!! In what part of the Constitution did you find the "right" I put in BOLD? Never heard of slander and libel? You can get in trouble for that kind of speech. What's constitutionally protected about cyber-bullying?

 

[Si modo]

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

Perhaps you missed the part where they declared speech a privilege and not a right. Then again, perhaps you did not and seem to think that they are right.

The idea is asinine. What the hell is 'mean.' That needs FAR more definition. How the hell does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say on the internet. I may not have a 'right' to face book but I sure as hell have a right to be able to express myself using whatever venue that I damn well choose to include the internet whether or not that expression offends someone or is considered 'mean.'

And then there is excluding people? Now I don't have a right to speak but now everyone else has a right to be a part of my group? Where the hell do these people get these asinine ideas?

Talk about "creating new rights"!!! In what part of the Constitution did you find the "right" I put in BOLD? Never heard of slander and libel? You can get in trouble for that kind of speech. What's constitutionally protected about cyber-bullying?

It's called the First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

And, there is no right at all to be protected from being offended.

 

[FA_Q2]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.

Theres' a big difference between political and non-political speech. All sorts of non-political speech CAN be abridged, trade and national secrets being prime examples. The article talks about non-political speech being abridged, but that doesn't automatically mean poltical speech would be abridged, unless you think the USSC is going to lay down on this issue.

You know, I re-read the first amendment and guess what, the word, implication or even the slightest hint of political simply was not in there. You know what WAS in there though?

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.

 

[konradv]

Perhaps you missed the part where they declared speech a privilege and not a right. Then again, perhaps you did not and seem to think that they are right.

The idea is asinine. What the hell is 'mean.' That needs FAR more definition. How the hell does the government have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say on the internet. I may not have a 'right' to face book but I sure as hell have a right to be able to express myself using whatever venue that I damn well choose to include the internet whether or not that expression offends someone or is considered 'mean.'

And then there is excluding people? Now I don't have a right to speak but now everyone else has a right to be a part of my group? Where the hell do these people get these asinine ideas?

Talk about "creating new rights"!!! In what part of the Constitution did you find the "right" I put in BOLD? Never heard of slander and libel? You can get in trouble for that kind of speech. What's constitutionally protected about cyber-bullying?

It's called the First Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

And, there is no right at all to be protected from being offended.

There's also no right to be protected from the the ramifications of that speech. Sure you're free to speak, as long as you're willing to accept the lawsuit and possible monetary awards that follow. Have fun with that "free speech", could cost a pretty penny.

 

[Sallow]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.


-

You didn't really read tht report, did you?

Of course not.

There are certain forms of speech that are not protected. We now have a new medium in which any one can say anything anonymously and get away with it.

And that means ruining people's reputations online.

There are LAWS against that.

They should be enforced.

 

[Wry Catcher]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.


-

What part of Congress shall make no law do you not understand? Libel and slander, threats and incitement to insurrection have always been restricted both in the civil code and the penal code.

 

[Sallow]

DailyTech - New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

Lefties are scary.

Theres' a big difference between political and non-political speech. All sorts of non-political speech CAN be abridged, trade and national secrets being prime examples. The article talks about non-political speech being abridged, but that doesn't automatically mean poltical speech would be abridged, unless you think the USSC is going to lay down on this issue.

You know, I re-read the first amendment and guess what, the word, implication or even the slightest hint of political simply was not in there. You know what WAS in there though?

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.

You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire. You can't lie about someone to the general public.

There are LIMITS on free speech.