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

[bripat9643]

And bripat succinctly demonstrates why his overtheboardness is laughable.

Starkey made up a word.

Your mother must be so proud!

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat makes up nonsense about the Constitution.

 

[paulitician]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are lost. Why do so many Americans support them? It's weird.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are lost. Why do so many Americans support them? It's weird.

Says a wannabee conservative who is nothing more than a lame libertarian. Libertarianism is simply a mental illness. We will watch it take over your host here and make you more of a frothing idiot.

 

[California Girl]

Pornography is free speech.

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

Interesting situation there. Giving ones life for something they do not condone?

It's a core conservative value. I may not agree with you, but I will give my life to protect your right to say it. What is hard to understand about that?

Oh, wait... yea... you don't value anything enough to die for a principle, do you? I overlooked that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm . . . wonder what CG wants?

 

[California Girl]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are lost. Why do so many Americans support them? It's weird.

Says a wannabee conservative who is nothing more than a lame libertarian. Libertarianism is simply a mental illness. We will watch it take over your host here and make you more of a frothing idiot.

Since you are more at home as a progressive, are you still pretending you're a Republican?

 

[California Girl]

Hmmm . . . wonder what CG wants?

Don't 'wonder', Jokey. It's waaaay over your intellectual pay grade to understand.

 

[paulitician]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are lost. Why do so many Americans support them? It's weird.

Says a wannabee conservative who is nothing more than a lame libertarian. Libertarianism is simply a mental illness. We will watch it take over your host here and make you more of a frothing idiot.

lol! Not sure i follow you on that one. If it's lame to support free speech for Americans,then yes i am pretty lame.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat makes up nonsense about the Constitution.

The First Amendment is "nonsense?"

Do ever read the idiocies you post?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yea Socialists/Progressives are lost. Why do so many Americans support them? It's weird.

Says a wannabee conservative who is nothing more than a lame libertarian. Libertarianism is simply a mental illness. We will watch it take over your host here and make you more of a frothing idiot.

lol! Not sure i follow you on that one. If it's lame to support free speech for Americans,then yes i am pretty lame.

You are subversive because you pretend silly when in fact your desire is to subvert the Constitution, as is the desire of all libertarians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your nonsense is your interp of the 1st Amendment. Yes, as a libertarian, you are mentally ill.

 

[paulitician]

Says a wannabee conservative who is nothing more than a lame libertarian. Libertarianism is simply a mental illness. We will watch it take over your host here and make you more of a frothing idiot.

lol! Not sure i follow you on that one. If it's lame to support free speech for Americans,then yes i am pretty lame.

You are subversive because you pretend silly when in fact your desire is to subvert the Constitution, as is the desire of all libertarians.

I did not know that. Thanks for clueing me in on that. I now realize how much i hate the Constitution. Thank you so much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians are as clueless and as sick as are communists. If you want to play well, kid, start giving evidence instead of sound bytes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I did, I know what they are addressing but this is insane, regardless of what they are trying to do.

In a report written by the Independent Democratic Conference of the New York State Senate, new cyberbullying laws are suggested. In order to address the concern that cyberbullying regulations may violate the First Amendment rights of citizens, the report outlines that:

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.

In short, the report claims that the First Amendment should be treated as a government-granted privilege, not a fundamental right.

Conference of NY Senators calls First Amendment a privilege

Uh, I don't think you known at all. Here, read what the report says:

BRITISH PHILOSOPHER JOHN STUART MILL LONG ARGUED THAT “THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR WHICH POWER CAN BE RIGHTFULLY EXERCISED OVER ANY MEMBER OF A CIVILIZED COMMUNITY, AGAINST HIS WILL, IS TO PREVENT HARM FROM OTHERS.”76 HIS “HARM PRINCIPLE” WAS ARTICULATED IN AN ANALOGY BY OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. (1841-1935), AND STILL HOLDS TRUE TODAY: “THE RIGHT TO SWING MY FIST ENDS WHERE THE OTHER MAN’S NOSE BEGINS,” OR, A PERSON’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ENDS WHEN IT SEVERELY INFRINGES UPON THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER.

IN THE CASE OF CYBERBULLYING, THE PERCEIVED PROTECTIONS OF FREE SPEECH ARE EXACTLY WHAT ENABLE HARMFUL SPEECH AND CRUEL BEHAVIOR ON THE INTERNET. IT IS THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE CAN POST ANYTHING THEY WANT, REGARDLESS OF THE HARM IT MIGHT CAUSE ANOTHER PERSON THAT HAS PERPETUATED, IF NOT CREATED, THIS CYBERBULLYING CULTURE. BUT “HATE SPEECH” THAT CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN VIRGINIA V. BLACK,77 FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT RULED THAT “THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (&#8230 ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, AND WE HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF EXPRESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS ‘RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CONTENT OF SPEECH IN A FEW LIMITED AREAS, WHICH ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL INTEREST IN ORDER AND MORALITY.’”78

UNTIL 1989, NEW YORK’S HARASSMENT LAWS WERE SO BROAD THAT, IN ORDER TO PREVAIL IN A CLAIM OF VERBAL HARASSMENT, THE PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD TO PROVE THAT THE SPEECH WAS “ABUSIVE OR OBSCENE.”79 IN PEOPLE V. DIETZE80, HOWEVER, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT PORTION OF THE STATE’S HARASSMENT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPLAINING THAT SPEECH MAY BE “ABUSIVE,” EVEN “VULGAR, DERISIVE, AND PROVOCATIVE,” AND STILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF “CONSTITUTIONALLY PROSCRIBABLE EXPRESSION.”81 THE COURT FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT SPEECH COULD ONLY BE RESTRICTED WITH REGARDS TO “WORDS THAT INFLICT INJURY OR OTHERWISE INCITE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE OR [BREACHES] OF PEACE,”82 AND THAT IS WHAT REMAINS THE LAW NOW.

THE INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC CONFERENCE BELIEVES THERE SHOULD BE CONSEQUENCES FOR THOSE WHO CYBERBULLY AND COMMIT BULLYCIDE AND THAT THOSE CONSEQUENCES PROPOSED IN THIS BILL ARE WITHIN THE ABOVE STATED PARAMETERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

I don't know why they would have chosen to use such poor verbage as to compare free speech to a privilege. But if you read the report, they are clearly and simply arguing that free speech is not an absolute right, that there are some narrow and limited exceptions where the government can act, and that this has always been understood to be the case. They are simply saying that the proposed cyber bullying bill is not a violation of the first amendment because the first amendment does not protect speech that is expressly harmful to another person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Criminal expressions are not free speech protected. "I am going to kill you" is a terroristic threat of intent, and it is not protected. Yelling "fire" in a theatre is not protected. Cyber bullying is not, ipso facto, free speech. The issue, thus, is not free speech but defining cyber bullying as criminal.

 

[Full-Auto]

Libertarians are as clueless and as sick as are communists. If you want to play well, kid, start giving evidence instead of sound bytes.

Does liberty frighten you that much youre ragging on libertarians.

Let me guess, you want to use the lefts definition of the group from years past.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians are as clueless and as sick as are communists. If you want to play well, kid, start giving evidence instead of sound bytes.

Does liberty frighten you that much youre ragging on libertarians.

Let me guess, you want to use the lefts definition of the group from years past.

I want to use the concept of Americanism as defined by historical and cultural development from 1775 on in our wonderful country. The libers wants to create a "society of free equals." That is as likely as a communist's utopia. Neither gonna happen. Both ends up with a cadre of elites terrorizing and torturing the great mass.

 

[Inthemiddle]

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Is that what all those anti-gay marriage protesters are doing?

 

[flacaltenn]

Criminal expressions are not free speech protected. "I am going to kill you" is a terroristic threat of intent, and it is not protected. Yelling "fire" in a theatre is not protected. Cyber bullying is not, ipso facto, free speech. The issue, thus, is not free speech but defining cyber bullying as criminal.

Gee Jake --- That's gonna take all the fun out of Halloween Horror Houses ain't it?

The guy NOW comes out the coffin with bloody meat cleaver and screams -- "RUN - because I have a Knife and you are scared",,,,

"i'm going to kill you" are the first words my wife spoke to me when I proposed to her while she was mowing the lawn on a tractor.. I think you have to have MORE than speech to make that case. But What do i know --- I'm just another insane Libertarian...

BTW: Why is that shoddy act neccessary Jake? Did you get mugged by a Libertarian recently?