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

[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.

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.

Then you need to go beyond the Constitution and read some USSC decisions, because all sorts of speech CAN and ARE abridged. Merely citing the 1st Amendment doesn't settle the issue, considering the particular brand of speech in question.

 

[Si modo]

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.

I am free to slander as well. No one can prevent me from that speech. Whether it IS slander or not, is for a court to decide.

Being offended and having hurt feelings is not slander, by the way.

The left, and specifically these Democrats, want to protect folks from being offended and having hurt feelings at the cost of your and my First Amendment rights.

Careful, now....don't offend me or hurt my feelings.

 

[konradv]

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.

I am free to slander as well. No one can prevent me from that speech. Whether it IS slander or not, is for a court to decide.

Being offended and having hurt feelings is not slander, by the way.

The left, and specifically these Democrats, want to protect folks from being offended and having hurt feelings at the cost of your and my First Amendment rights.

Careful, now....don't offend me or hurt my feelings.

You seem to be asking for "special rights" here! Careful, now... you'll have people thinking you're gay!!! What you're invoking isn't a "right". Of course, no one can prevent you from slandering, just as no one can be prevented from cyber-bullying. In both cases you could end up in court, however. The fact that the case wouldn't get thrown out on constitutional grounds, proves that what you're talking about ISN'T a constitutional right.

 

[WillowTree]

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

You got some serious work to do in New Yawk before you try to tackle facebook...

 

[Si modo]

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.

I am free to slander as well. No one can prevent me from that speech. Whether it IS slander or not, is for a court to decide.

Being offended and having hurt feelings is not slander, by the way.

The left, and specifically these Democrats, want to protect folks from being offended and having hurt feelings at the cost of your and my First Amendment rights.

Careful, now....don't offend me or hurt my feelings.

You seem to be asking for "special rights" here! Careful, now... you'll have people thinking you're gay!!! What you're invoking isn't a "right". Of course, no one can prevent you from slandering, just as no one can be prevented from cyber-bullying. In both cases you could end up in court, however. The fact that the case wouldn't get thrown out on constitutional grounds, proves that what you're talking about ISN'T a constitutional right.

How you get that my demanding that my right to free speech, guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights, is my asking for a special right is humorous.

However, I do know that there is not any right to being protected from hurt feelings or being offended.

But, if it ever does become a right, I will take that to town (only for the folks I don't particularly care for). I can cry on demand, not a problem.

 

[konradv]

I am free to slander as well. No one can prevent me from that speech. Whether it IS slander or not, is for a court to decide.

Being offended and having hurt feelings is not slander, by the way.

The left, and specifically these Democrats, want to protect folks from being offended and having hurt feelings at the cost of your and my First Amendment rights.

Careful, now....don't offend me or hurt my feelings.

You seem to be asking for "special rights" here! Careful, now... you'll have people thinking you're gay!!! What you're invoking isn't a "right". Of course, no one can prevent you from slandering, just as no one can be prevented from cyber-bullying. In both cases you could end up in court, however. The fact that the case wouldn't get thrown out on constitutional grounds, proves that what you're talking about ISN'T a constitutional right.

How you get that my demanding that my right to free speech, guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights, is my asking for a special right is humorous.

However, I do know that there is not any right to being protected from hurt feelings or being offended.

But, if it ever does become a right, I will take that to town (only for the folks I don't particularly care for). I can cry on demand, not a problem.

Correct, there's no right to not being offended, but there's also no right to say whatever one wants in the non-political arena. Even in the political arena you can't call for the violent overhtrow of the government or the assassination of political figures, so your idea that any private speech is protected, just doesn't meet constitutional muster.

 

[Si modo]

You seem to be asking for "special rights" here! Careful, now... you'll have people thinking you're gay!!! What you're invoking isn't a "right". Of course, no one can prevent you from slandering, just as no one can be prevented from cyber-bullying. In both cases you could end up in court, however. The fact that the case wouldn't get thrown out on constitutional grounds, proves that what you're talking about ISN'T a constitutional right.

How you get that my demanding that my right to free speech, guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights, is my asking for a special right is humorous.

However, I do know that there is not any right to being protected from hurt feelings or being offended.

But, if it ever does become a right, I will take that to town (only for the folks I don't particularly care for). I can cry on demand, not a problem.

Correct, there's no right to not being offended, but there's also no right to say whatever one wants in the non-political arena. Even in the political arena you can't call for the violent overhtrow of the government or the assassination of political figures, so your idea that any private speech is protected, just doesn't meet constitutional muster.

I am well aware of the very few and very specific conditions in which the safety of many is a greater right than a specific type of speech of the one. But, my point sure does pass the Constitutional muster. Absolutely it does. Read the First Amendment.

This is a case where the possible and alleged safety of one (the alleged 'bully-ee') becomes more important than the inherent right to free speech of ALL.

That doesn't wash.

And, this proposal states unequivocally the free speech is a privilege and not a right. It is not a privilege; it is a right, an inherent one at that.

This is done in an effort to protect people from being offended and having their feelings hurt (cyber-bullying). There is no right to that. At all. And, there never should be. But, if there is, I will take it to town to silence those persons I do not like. Not something I want to do because I value free speech but if it is a law, I will damn-well do it and I will be very good at it and very effective at it. And, that is the direct opposite of the promotion of free speech.

The ACLU better get hopping on this, by the way.

 

[Defiant1]

LOL, Keep voting DEMOCRAT folks, you want all YOUR RIGHTS taken away..

Now try and deny the Democrat party hasn't become the Communist party of the United States..

Whoa...........you got us with that one! I'm pretty sure nobody has any desire to "try and deny" that completely unsubstantiated negative.

BTW, the correct term is Democratic party. Did you know that?

Yes, you democratics remind us all the time.

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

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

For christ sake, if you're "cyber bullied" - change your screen name, stop posting, get out of the web site. if it's Facebook, cancel the account, fix it so noone can see what you post. I don't need the government to do that for me. use common sense!

 

[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

For christ sake, if you're "cyber bullied" - change your screen name, stop posting, get out of the web site. if it's Facebook, cancel the account, fix it so noone can see what you post. I don't need the government to do that for me. use common sense!

That woudl be too easy. It would demand the individual took action on his own for his own welfare. We can't have that. Who knows where that kind of independence could lead? We need Big Government to craft a global solution to the scourge of cyber-bullying. For the children.

 

[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

For christ sake, if you're "cyber bullied" - change your screen name, stop posting, get out of the web site. if it's Facebook, cancel the account, fix it so noone can see what you post. I don't need the government to do that for me. use common sense!

That woudl be too easy. It would demand the individual took action on his own for his own welfare. We can't have that. Who knows where that kind of independence could lead? We need Big Government to craft a global solution to the scourge of cyber-bullying. For the children.

Come to think of it, I really should support this. How empowering my hurt feelings could be!


Hmmmmm.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Does it chap my ass? No.....it just demonstrates that you have no interest in dealing with reality. This nation is made up of people with differing opinions and ideas about things. Your unwillingness to consider the opinions and ideas of a huge segment of the population speaks more to your failings than the condition of my ass.

We don't need reality lectures from leftists.... you fuckers are about as far removed from reality as one can be without being sucked into a worm hole.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Chip, chip, chip away...............and then one day......it's all gone.

 

[Conservative]

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?

i read this part...

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.

Sorry, but the Dems in this case are incorrect.

 

[Conservative]

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

really? the right-wing article calls free speech a privilege, not a right?

you must have missed this part...

They write...
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.

The THEY being the Democrats involved.

 

[Conservative]

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.

Any time you directly quote something stupid a Democrats says, you're mis-characterizing it. Didn't you know that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Free speech is not an unlimited right. However, free speech is certainly not a privilege. Political speech generally is unlimited, except in the work place, etc. The NY dems are wrong on this.

 

[Conservative]

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.

please show me the part of the 1st amendment that talks about political speech.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Any time you directly quote something stupid a Democrats says, you're mis-characterizing it. Didn't you know that?

Democrats don't admit their mistakes. They elect them.

 

[Conservative]

How is this direct quote a mischaracterization?


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.

Any time you directly quote something stupid a Democrats says, you're mis-characterizing it. Didn't you know that?

Democrats don't admit their mistakes. They elect them.