Why the 1st Amendment is overrated

[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,

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.

Ahhh but pursing happiness while harming someone else is not what we're talking about. Pedophilia by its very nature harms a child. An adult woman, or an adult man, loving another adult of the same sex isn't the same now is it.

 

[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.

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

Then you have to disagree that Citizens United was a good decision.

 

[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.

Then you have to disagree that Citizens United was a good decision.

Which one of the many decisions?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear IndependantAce

1. First of all it is up to people to police our own free speech.
By its very nature, it is not up to govt to police what is already deemed a natural right outside govt controls.
The First Amendment happens to summarize three levels of human experience that come with "human nature" and are thus governed by "natural laws" self-existent without govt. The point of the Constitution is to LIMIT the govt from INFRINGING on these natural laws and right:
* free exercise of religion is the political way of saying free will, free exercise of beliefs or consent (but this is checked by the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, where neither free speech or free exercise could be abused to disrupt the peace and cause a breach without violating the rest of the same law)
* free speech and free press are the individual equivalent of political rights and legislative and judicial power in communicating our beliefs in written contracts, laws and interpretations/rulings; any form of expressing our consent or dissent
* the right to assemble and petition is our right to democratic due process

Every human being naturally has these rights, we are born with free will and we naturally will express our consent and dissent, and object when our free will is violated or threatened. So we, by our nature, individually have the same capacity as all three branches of govt collectively. The laws are written to try to govern the COLLECTIVE level from infringing on the individual level that is inherent by nature. It's not the other way around.

2. Secondly as mentioned above, we can use the First Amendment and rest of the Bill of Right to CHECK THEMSELVES.
By enforcing "due process" and "equal protection of the laws"
the right to petition to redress grievances, etc.
we can police our own free speech/free exercise of religion
to prevent abuses of these that otherwise violate the equal rights of others!

3. Before we expect to check govt or expect govt to check itself,
doesn't it make sense to educate THE PEOPLE to enforce the laws
and use them to correct themselves from abuses and violations?

 

[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.

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

Then you have to disagree that Citizens United was a good decision.

Which one of the many decisions?

How about the one that says money is speech?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Then you have to disagree that Citizens United was a good decision.

Which one of the many decisions?

How about the one that says money is speech?

Dear Nosmo King
Why not check Corporations by the First Amendment and Bill of Rights?
Since corporations have to register with each State, each State could require Corporations as collective entities to respect due process, the right to petition and equal protection of individual rights in order to operate within that State.

What laws do we need to pass to get both Citizens and Corporations to follow the same standards as we demand of Govt?