Why the 1st Amendment is overrated

[IndependantAce]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

 

[mdk]

The Gladys Kravitz Amendment.

 

[IndependantAce]

Not really. What people do in private is not a huge concern, but when a lot of smut is constantly accessible to children via public airwaves that's another thing entirely, and I don't believe it's what the founders had in mind at all by "free speech".

 

[Nosmo King]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

 

[IndependantAce]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

If public pollution can be regulated then the same case could be made for public airwaves and media as far as content with no redeeming value is concern; plus it was never considered 'protected speech' until just a few decades ago.

Internet porn sites for example don't serve much if any social redeeming value, and are a potentially unhealthy influence on children, so I can't see much argument against simply banning it.

Some adult reading a Playboy in his own home wouldn't be an issue.

 

[westwall]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

You would be wrong. The Founders stated it clearly, you, as a citizen are free to pursue happiness, furthermore the COTUS was designed to protect minority positions from antagonists like you.

 

[Hossfly]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

I agree about speech. I don't agree that expression is speech. The founders said speech and I take it literally.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

Thankfully, what you ‘think’ isn't the law of the land.

And First Amendment jurisprudence reflects exactly the original intent of the Framers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not really. What people do in private is not a huge concern, but when a lot of smut is constantly accessible to children via public airwaves that's another thing entirely, and I don't believe it's what the founders had in mind at all by "free speech".

And you’re entitled to your ‘belief,’ with the understanding that as a fact of law you’re wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not really. What people do in private is not a huge concern, but when a lot of smut is constantly accessible to children via public airwaves that's another thing entirely, and I don't believe it's what the founders had in mind at all by "free speech".

And you’re entitled to your ‘belief,’ with the understanding that as a fact of law you’re wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

At least 2 of my 6 children are bisexual. And my wife is very bisexual. No doubt about that. And I love her with all of my heart.

Butt you can rest assured that I have no desire to shove my dick up your ass. I promise.

 

[IndependantAce]

Not really. What people do in private is not a huge concern, but when a lot of smut is constantly accessible to children via public airwaves that's another thing entirely, and I don't believe it's what the founders had in mind at all by "free speech".

And you’re entitled to your ‘belief,’ with the understanding that as a fact of law you’re wrong.

Then the law's what wrong, not me.

 

[IndependantAce]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

At least 2 of my 6 children are bisexual. And my wife is very bisexual. No doubt about that. And I love her with all of my heart.

Butt you can rest assured that I have no desire to shove my dick up your ass. I promise.

Cool. What you do in your bedroom is one thing - but gay pride parades in a public venue? I'd say the states have every right to ban it.

 

[IndependantAce]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

Thankfully, what you ‘think’ isn't the law of the land.

And First Amendment jurisprudence reflects exactly the original intent of the Framers.

Not at all, but you don't care about the framers - you're a John Stuart Millite.

 

[IndependantAce]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

You would be wrong. The Founders stated it clearly, you, as a citizen are free to pursue happiness,

Pedophiles think that spanking it to child porn makes them "happy" - that doesn't make it a right. "Pursuit of happiness" I'm sure meant something a long the line's of one's right to work hard, keep their money, start their own business - not a "right" to be a deviant, such as putting on a dress and demaning access to the girl's bathroom.

 

[IndependantAce]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

I agree about speech. I don't agree that expression is speech. The founders said speech and I take it literally.

Right, if something is displayed or broadcast in a public venue it's the state's right to regulate it if they believe it serves no social value.

A lot of the things I mentioned above are things I think states could make a could argument for banning.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

So is that your purpose -- to advertise and cheerlead for "The Constitution Party" ??

And your advertisement is all double-speak right? You advocate oppression whereas the 1st Amendment advocates freedom of expression (as long as it does not hurt anybody else, such as child pornography, or yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre, which do hurt others).

 

[yiostheoy]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

I agree about speech. I don't agree that expression is speech. The founders said speech and I take it literally.

Right, if something is displayed or broadcast in a public venue it's the state's right to regulate it if they believe it serves no social value.

A lot of the things I mentioned above are things I think states could make a could argument for banning.

"States" is a vague term which when boiled down really means the voters and the legislatures.

Thus a "state" is a place deemed by its residents.

Needless to say the Utahans would be more likely to oppress each other with their rigid fanatical ideologies?

And the Californians would be more likely to permit anything goes!

So where in the Hell are you from ?! You don't say in your bio anywhere.

That will tell us all a lot about what you really think because then we will know where you have been brainwashed.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think the 1st Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts over the years to give protection to a lot of forms of "expression" that the Founders never intended.

I think for example that the Founders would have been perfectly fine with states criminalizing gay pride or transgenderism as obscene with no redeeming social value. They also probably would have been fine with much of the salacious music, film, and other "entertainment" in being banned from the airwaves - as well as shutting down the paparrazi and "celebrity news industries", which are basically just a legal form of stalking that skirts the laws just to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Other things on the chopping block would likely be internet pornography, and beauty pageants (especially child beauty pageants) which simply propagate whoredom as a "virtue".

Much of what we call "free speech or expression" today likely would have been banned for most of America's history; it was during the counter-culture movement following the 1960s that the Constitution was mis-interpreted by liberal courts to consider a lot of this obscenity "protected speech'.

If there was a way we could undo this nonsense, such as repealing and reinstating the 1st Amendment back according to its original intent I think we'd be better off as a nation, without all of this vacuous social pollution being passed of as a protected "right".

I believe the Constitution Party feels the same way in many respects, so they might be a valid 3rd party to keep an eye on.

At least 2 of my 6 children are bisexual. And my wife is very bisexual. No doubt about that. And I love her with all of my heart.

Butt you can rest assured that I have no desire to shove my dick up your ass. I promise.

Cool. What you do in your bedroom is one thing - but gay pride parades in a public venue? I'd say the states have every right to ban it.

This is going to be my 2nd guess that you are Utahan because you seem to be homophobic.

Are you afraid gays will bite you ?!

They are just ordinary people like all the rest of us but with alternative lifestyles.

Whatever floats your boat -- the true California mantra.

 

[Nosmo King]

Remember this: popular speech does not require protection. Unpopular speech does. It needs protection from the narrow minded who would shut it down and prohibit it by using their narrow moral template as an aegis to perpetuate hatred.

If public pollution can be regulated then the same case could be made for public airwaves and media as far as content with no redeeming value is concern; plus it was never considered 'protected speech' until just a few decades ago.

Internet porn sites for example don't serve much if any social redeeming value, and are a potentially unhealthy influence on children, so I can't see much argument against simply banning it.

Some adult reading a Playboy in his own home wouldn't be an issue.

Just because my child cannot eat a steak, it does not mean I should have one.