Reasons Why The First Amendment Should Be Restricted, Stifled, Or Done Away With

[SaxonJackson]

Nobody likes anyone to disagree with their ideology or worldview. Most people don't like to be criticized because of their religion or nationality or sexual orientation or political views or body type or their weight or their skin color. But most of us agree that nobody should be allowed to scream "pipe bomb" in a packed theater or in a courthouse. We also agree (I'm guessing) that we should never accuse an innocent person of committing a heinous crime with the intent of punishing them for something they didn't do.

Here's what the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights says:

"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."

There are some nations that have historically rejected (or currently reject) all or most of the ideas posited in America's 1st Amendment. Communist China and North Korea come to mind. There are other nations that used to embrace personal freedom but have chosen to reject it in recent years. The UK and Germany come to mind. They seem willing to arrest people for disagreeing with the official, government narrative. Their citizens are "free" as long as they do what they're told and don't stray from the government-approved path.

Where do you stand on Freedom Of Speech? Should people be able to express thoughts, ideals, and beliefs that differ from yours or should people be forced to think, embrace, and support only what you think, embrace, and support? Should American citizens be muzzled or punished for speaking out (for or against) anything listed on the following list?

Multiple choice. Choose all that apply.

 

[Votto]

Nobody likes anyone to disagree with their ideology or worldview. Most people don't like to be criticized because of their religion or nationality or sexual orientation or political views or body type or their weight or their skin color. But most of us agree that nobody should be allowed to scream "pipe bomb" in a packed theater or in a courthouse. We also agree (I'm guessing) that we should never accuse an innocent person of committing a heinous crime with the intent of punishing them for something they didn't do.

Here's what the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights says:

"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."

There are some nations that have historically rejected (or currently reject) all or most of the ideas posited in America's 1st Amendment. Communist China and North Korea come to mind. There are other nations that used to embrace personal freedom but have chosen to reject it in recent years. The UK and Germany come to mind. They seem willing to arrest people for disagreeing with the official, government narrative. Their citizens are "free" as long as they do what they're told and don't stray from the government-approved path.

Where do you stand on Freedom Of Speech? Should people be able to express thoughts, ideals, and beliefs that differ from yours or should people be forced to think, embrace, and support only what you think, embrace, and support? Should American citizens be muzzled or punished for speaking out (for or against) anything listed on the following list?

Multiple choice. Choose all that apply.

The American Founders even tried to take away free speech with their Alien and Sedition Acts that made it illegal to speak out against those in government. Had Jefferson not objected and later overturned much of it, the US would have been a far darker place.

What was left of the Alien and Sedition acts, FDR used to imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW2.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

Since the document was ratified, they have been hacking away at it.
What silly monkeys we are.

REPEAL THE 19TH

 

[1srelluc]

The founders should have included a "punch in the mouth" clause.....No penalty for getting punched in the mouth for saying something ignorant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Meh. I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say and don't care much for who likes it or doesn't like it.

So, yeah...pineapple...

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Meh. I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say and don't care much for who likes it or doesn't like it.

So, yeah...pineapple...

.

We do that where I live.

We also need to be responsible when we say stupid crap and when we punch people for what they say, because we are an open carry state. Makes folks generally behave better.

IMHO:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life", is more than a quote from a science fiction novel.

.

 

[sparky]

Where do you stand on Freedom Of Speech?

we have freedom of speech , just not the consequences of it Jackson

as soon as said consequences are government dominion (or their brownshirts) in any shape or form the 1st is violated

~S~

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

We do that where I live.

Well. "Where I live'' certainly is, or should be, the primary field of play/ political operation.

That's why the outsiders are infiltrating the neighborhood bureaucracies, suppose.


So now it's your move since "Where I live,'' as I said, '' certainly is, or should be, the primary field of play/ political operation.''

Hold or charge. Pick one...

Now that's not an attack on what you said, but you said a lot there without actually saying it. There's a deeper discussion there. So kudos for that.

We also need to be responsible when we say stupid crap and when we punch people for what they say, because we are an open carry state. Makes folks generally behave better.

IMHO:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life", is more than a quote from a science fiction novel.

.

Yes, Responsibility is fundamental to the cause of Individual liberty.

That, too is a muck deeper conversation.

So kudos again for the reference to it.

With regard to you open carry and defense against the use of force thought there, I won't say much about that. Sometmes you give a nigga a rope he wanna be a fukin cowboy.'' lol. I stole that line from an Eddie Murphy comedy skit, but it's true. Oh, it's darned true. And words are just words.

Obviously shoot a dolt in the face, however, if he's coming at youwith the intent to **** you up or whatever.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nobody likes anyone to disagree with their ideology or worldview. Most people don't like to be criticized because of their religion or nationality or sexual orientation or political views or body type or their weight or their skin color. But most of us agree that nobody should be allowed to scream "pipe bomb" in a packed theater or in a courthouse. We also agree (I'm guessing) that we should never accuse an innocent person of committing a heinous crime with the intent of punishing them for something they didn't do.

Here's what the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights says:

"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."

There are some nations that have historically rejected (or currently reject) all or most of the ideas posited in America's 1st Amendment. Communist China and North Korea come to mind. There are other nations that used to embrace personal freedom but have chosen to reject it in recent years. The UK and Germany come to mind. They seem willing to arrest people for disagreeing with the official, government narrative. Their citizens are "free" as long as they do what they're told and don't stray from the government-approved path.

Where do you stand on Freedom Of Speech? Should people be able to express thoughts, ideals, and beliefs that differ from yours or should people be forced to think, embrace, and support only what you think, embrace, and support? Should American citizens be muzzled or punished for speaking out (for or against) anything listed on the following list?

Multiple choice. Choose all that apply.

Marked Winner because, as more of a casual observer in that thread that got bumped down to the sewer, predictably, I know why you started this thread.

At least you know who/what you're fighting now. On here anyway.

That specific group ran, as it routinely does, all of the usual lines didn't it? And even wanted you banned. It ran run that same ''false allegations'' gambit a lot, always calling for someone's banning who politely disagrees with it in the end. Heh heh...

I think the maudes are afraid of em because they know that as soon as they deal with one of em doing that Mickey Mouse gambit, the rest of em are gonna come back in synergy crying about ''Hey, no fair, anti-Semite maudes at USMB!!!, hey no fair USMB is an anti-Semite web site, tell all of your friends.'' lolol...

Ah well. As I said in post #8,....

 

[SaxonJackson]

Marked Winner because, as more of a casual observer in that thread that got bumped down to the sewer, predictably, I know why you started this thread.

At least you know who/what you're fighting now. On here anyway.

That specific group ran, as it routinely does, all of the usual lines didn't they? And even wanted you banned. They run that same ''false allegations'' gambit a lot, always calling for someone's banning who politely disagrees with them in the end. Heh heh...

I think the maudes are afraid of em because they know that as soon as they deal with one of em doing that Mickey Mouse gambit, the rest of em are gonna come back in synergy crying about ''Hey, no fair, anti-Semite maudes!!!, hey no fair USMB is an anti-Semite web site, tell all of your friends.'' lolol...

Ah well. As I said in post #8,....

The usual "debate" tactic is name-calling (which I happen to believe is protected speech) when no logical argument exists. However, name-calling has silenced 50% of the members of this forum who are too timid or fragile to speak up. So we can expect name-calling to be the primary response in 50% of the threads. It works! Just not on me.

Then there's the occasional threats of violence from people hiding behind their computer screens. A tactic often used by Antifa and the "woke" left but sometimes borrowed by the Neocon "right."

 

[TNHarley]

I picked Satanism because He is the shit. If you talk bad about him, you deserve punishment. And not the cool kind like spending eternity burning.

 

[Darkwind]

Killing people on a college campus is speech.
Killing people on a beach is speech.
Killing a woman with her baby in a stroller is speech.
Gangs of children beating up and nearly killing an elderly couple is speech.
Screaming death to America as you kill is speech
Beating up people for supporting MAGA is speech
Attacking a federal courthouse is speech
Attacking and harming law enforcement is speech

It seems the only form of speech that is restricted is standing up for Freedom, Charlie Kirk, and the Constitution.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Killing people on a college campus is speech.
Killing people on a beach is speech.
Killing a woman with her baby in a stroller is speech.
Gangs of children beating up and nearly killing an elderly couple is speech.
Screaming death to America as you kill is speech
Beating up people for supporting MAGA is speech
Attacking a federal courthouse is speech
Attacking and harming law enforcement is speech

It seems the only form of speech that is restricted is standing up for Freedom, Charlie Kirk, and the Constitution.

Those are actions. They are not "speech."

Speech: "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words."

 

[Darkwind]

Those are actions. They are not "speech."

Speech: "The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words."

They are considered speech by the left.

 

[SaxonJackson]

They are considered speech by the left.

Oh. I see what you mean. Correct! The left redefines words all the time to further their agenda.

 

[SaxonJackson]

So far ... the votes reflect a common sense reaction. That's a good thing.

 

[Lockback]

Nobody likes anyone to disagree with their ideology or worldview. Most people don't like to be criticized because of their religion or nationality or sexual orientation or political views or body type or their weight or their skin color. But most of us agree that nobody should be allowed to scream "pipe bomb" in a packed theater or in a courthouse. We also agree (I'm guessing) that we should never accuse an innocent person of committing a heinous crime with the intent of punishing them for something they didn't do.

Here's what the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights says:

"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."

There are some nations that have historically rejected (or currently reject) all or most of the ideas posited in America's 1st Amendment. Communist China and North Korea come to mind. There are other nations that used to embrace personal freedom but have chosen to reject it in recent years. The UK and Germany come to mind. They seem willing to arrest people for disagreeing with the official, government narrative. Their citizens are "free" as long as they do what they're told and don't stray from the government-approved path.

Where do you stand on Freedom Of Speech? Should people be able to express thoughts, ideals, and beliefs that differ from yours or should people be forced to think, embrace, and support only what you think, embrace, and support? Should American citizens be muzzled or punished for speaking out (for or against) anything listed on the following list?

Multiple choice. Choose all that apply.

I chose all that apply.
Which was zero.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I chose all that apply.
Which was zero.

You're closer to the truth than most. There are lots of members of this site that dream of canceling speech they don't like but they're too cowardly to come out and admit it. I'm "grey" on the telling "fire" in a theater but I am opposed to falsely accusing an innocent person. That's downright wrong.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Down Right Versus Up Left "

* They Want Disclosure Of Online Identity *

You're closer to the truth than most. There are lots of members of this site that dream of canceling speech they don't like but they're too cowardly to come out and admit it. I'm "grey" on the telling "fire" in a theater but I am opposed to falsely accusing an innocent person. That's downright wrong.

When the " censorship buffoons " and " kill em all and let goad sort them out fanatics " get identified in social media , an opportunity to dismantle such inane stupidity is enjoyable .

Some choose the option of lying about some characteristic or actions of another individual for spite , as retaliation for some other perceived offense , or for sensationalism .

Yelling fire would be appropriate if a fire were burning .

A website that assures its adult sex performers are of adult age over 18 now gets its content blocked , without verification of online identity as an adult , for public safety reasons , because pedophiles are sparking up conversations with adolescents on some other unrelated chat engine .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Lacks Decency Of A Gentlemen Agreement "

* Informed Consent Versus Sucker Punches Of Cowardly No Count Pricks *

The founders should have included a "punch in the mouth" clause.....No penalty for getting punched in the mouth for saying something ignorant.

Thought captain kirk was all about free speech , which is relieved of threats from violence , so guessing it must be a running joke .

A statement directing violence , against speech not directing violence , violates principles of non violence .

The principles of non violence and of individualism are standards by which equal protection among individuals is determined .

The principles of non violence define violence as illegitimate aggression and self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

The principles of individualism define violence as illegitimate aggression depriving an individual of self ownership or of self determination , where self ownership entitles an individual to free roam , to free association and to progeny , and where self determination entitles an individual to private property and to enter into social civil contracts , which are made valid through informed consent .

The principles of non violence and of individualism do not allow forfeit of self ownership through illegitimate aggression as slavery is not allowed .