repeal the First Amendment

Scary...

The quesition is do we really need a first amendment to protect our freedom of speech? If the government follows the rules and there is no rule allowing the government to limit any speech then why do you need another amendment protecting it?
 
Scary...

The quesition is do we really need a first amendment to protect our freedom of speech? If the government follows the rules and there is no rule allowing the government to limit any speech then why do you need another amendment protecting it?

At the time our Bill oh Rights was first purposed there were those that thought it was not necessary because everyone knew what their rights were and the government would never attempt to violate them, but history has proven that to be untrue.

The government attempts to infringe upon our individual rights at every turn, and without the Bill of Rights we would really be screwed, more that we are now.

Congress is never ending in its attempt to increase its power at the expense of the citizens, and just how long do you believe it would take them to pass laws limiting our freedom of speech without the first amendment?
 
The First Amendment is the affirmative statement of the freedoms that make up individual liberty.

Even if it weren't necessary (and you better believe it is), why would anybody want to give it up? :cuckoo:
 
I really don't understand how anyone would want to give up the right to free speech. I just can't wrap my mind around this type of stuff.

Are you really surprised after the results of last weeks Court decision and the absolute hysteria half the board had over the the First Amendment being upheld?
 
Are you really surprised after the results of last weeks Court decision and the absolute hysteria half the board had over the the First Amendment being upheld?

Because they are the same fucking thing. :rolleyes:

My goodness you're such a dishonest troll sometimes.
 
I really don't understand how anyone would want to give up the right to free speech. I just can't wrap my mind around this type of stuff.

You can't give up that right anymore than you an make a stone way less by passing a law that says so. It exist in nature not in state law.
 
Has anyone noticed that it seems OK to remove the first amendment when it protects what liberals have defined as a social evil such as hate speech or corporation political activities? Its like you can use the slogan "hate speech" and people think that it is justifiable to destroy the first amendment to do away with it in order to satisfy their moral conscience.

Hate Speech = Immoral = Divine State Must do away with that right
Corporations = Greed = Divine State must destroy all corporations
 
Last edited:
Has anyone noticed that it seems OK to remove the first amendment when it protects what liberals have defined as a social evil such as hate speech or corporation political activities? Its like you can the words "hate speech" and people immediatly want to scrap anything to destroy it.

Corporations are only humans in the limited sense so they can be a entity with certain rights that are given to humans. Corporations are no more human in reality than the chair you're sitting on.

And I hope you enjoy China being able to influence our elections. You cry Communism now? Just wait until they start funneling money to Communist candidates. :thup:
 
I really don't understand how anyone would want to give up the right to free speech. I just can't wrap my mind around this type of stuff.

You can't give up that right anymore than you an make a stone way less by passing a law that says so. It exist in nature not in state law.

1. The First Amendment is not State law
2. Without the First Amendment, you try that defense when the police come and break down your door for speaking out against (fill in politician of choice here).
 
I really don't understand how anyone would want to give up the right to free speech. I just can't wrap my mind around this type of stuff.

You can't give up that right anymore than you an make a stone way less by passing a law that says so. It exist in nature not in state law.

1. The First Amendment is not State law
2. Without the First Amendment, you try that defense when the police come and break down your door for speaking out against (fill in politician of choice here).

1. Is that why the constitution states that it is the supreme law of the land?
2. Authoritarians always think the state's natural role is to oppress people and when it chooses not to then it is a right.
 
Has anyone noticed that it seems OK to remove the first amendment when it protects what liberals have defined as a social evil such as hate speech or corporation political activities? Its like you can the words "hate speech" and people immediatly want to scrap anything to destroy it.

Corporations are only humans in the limited sense so they can be a entity with certain rights that are given to humans. Corporations are no more human in reality than the chair you're sitting on.

And I hope you enjoy China being able to influence our elections. You cry Communism now? Just wait until they start funneling money to Communist candidates. :thup:

I'm glad you realize that but if I decided use my chair to communicate to others such as taping a message to the back of it and the state wanted to pass a law against that; would the state be banning my chair or me? That is what we are saying that by banning a corporation you are banning the actual humans who are a part of that corporation.
 
Is this a joke post?
Oh nevermind. The title was just shocking. I guess the author isn't actually against the first amendment.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top