Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Mac-7]

I really doubt the framers were very concerned what the man on the street thought. They were not the people that would be making the decisions on the revolution, the new country ,or their leaders because only 1 in 5 were allowed to vote, free, white, male, property owners over 21.

I think the common man’s opinion meant everything to the Framers

Because without popular support there would be no revolution

And for that reason the newspapers and other print media were very important

 

[Flopper]

I think the common man’s opinion meant everything to the Framers

Because without popular support there would be no revolution

And for that reason the newspapers and other print media were very important

If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators? And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote?

The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today. The polling places were typical in homes or businesses of wealthy land owners. There were no federal requirements and few state requirements. Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them. Voting was often by show of hands or vocal. Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts were a major attraction. In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes. In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected. For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners to select a leader from one of their own. It was a non-event.

When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected. It would be over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office. Laws were passed forcing electors to vote in accordance with the decision of voters. For the first time, the self-made man stood toe to toe with the aristocratic gentlemen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators. And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote.

The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today. The polling places were typical in homes are businesses of wealthy land owners. There were no federal requirements and few state requirements. Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them. Voting was often by show hands or vocal. Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts were a major attraction. In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes. In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected. For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners. It was non-event.

When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected. It would be a over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office and laws forcing electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote, etc.

For the most part true.

But this neither mitigates nor undermines the validity of the Framers’ intent that the people – not government, private citizens in the context of private society – should alone decide what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

 

[Flopper]

For the most part true.

But this neither mitigates nor undermines the validity of the Framers’ intent that the people – not government, private citizens in the context of private society – should alone decide what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

I agree.

 

[Mac-7]

If the common man's opinion meant so much to them, why didn't they allow the people to vote for their president or for their senators? And why were they satisfied with only about 20% to 25% of the population being able to vote?

The earliest federal elections were far different than what they are today. The polling places were typical in homes or businesses of wealthy land owners. There were no federal requirements and few state requirements. Often the owners of polling place would solicit the votes and report them. Voting was often by show of hands or vocal. Instead of a pollical event, voting was a social event. Spirts were a major attraction. In a number of states electors were not bound to follow the voters wishes. In effect the vote was more of a poll to determine how voters felt. This was the environment in which the constitution was created and the nations leaders were selected. For the common man who did not own property, voting was just a meeting of wealthy land owners to select a leader from one of their own. It was a non-event.

When the nation was founded, it was still the age of aristocratic gentleman who ran the country and rich property owners who got them elected. It would be over a half century before the age of the common man began where changes in states and federal laws made our elections more democrat by allowing non-property owners to vote and run for office. Laws were passed forcing electors to vote in accordance with the decision of voters. For the first time, the self-made man stood toe to toe with the aristocratic gentlemen.

I dont deny that it was what you called an age of aristocratic gentlemen.

Is that so bad?

They created a nation that has peacefully evolved into a more inclusive country today without a violent revolution every 20-30 years

So I think the founders done good

 

[Flopper]

I dont deny that it was what you called an age of aristocratic gentlemen.

Is that so bad?

They created a nation that has peacefully evolved into a more inclusive country today without a violent revolution every 20-30 years

So I think the founders done good

Whether it was good or bad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that constitution was created by these men as were our laws for nearly 50 years. Thomas Paine pointed out that American aristocracy is painfully out of touch with the citizenry. And in fact, many of our Founding Fathers were, in fact, aristocrats who saw the world far differently than their bonded servants, share croppers, tenants, and tradesman. These aristocrats were primarily concern with their freedom from England for themselves. While they supported basic rights in constitution at the same time they were opposed to allowing the common people to choose our nations leaders. What they saw of democracy in Europe they did not like. Aristocrats handing from lamp posts was certainly on their mind.

Founders such as Jefferson saw the common man as the heart of the nation and he was intent on seeing a constitution that provided equal rights for all. However, when it came to selecting the leadership of the nation, most founders believe the leaders should be selected by new states. How they did that would be left to the states. Thus the constitution has little to say about voting other than the states selection electors who would vote on the president, state legislatures would pick senators and the people would select the members of House. They left it entirely up the states to decide who exactly were "the people" that would be voting. As a result only about 20% to 25% of the people were allowed to vote but due to various laws and regulations in the states, the actually number voting was considering less. Thus the privileged few selected the nations leadership and would for many years

The end of control by the aristocrats came with the election of Jackson. For the first time non-properly owners were allowed to vote. This is considered by most historians as beginning of the age of the common man where control of government and much of business began shifting away from the aristocracy to the the self-made man.

 

[woodwork201]

That this thread even exists is all the proof in the world that there should be NO restriction on freedom of speech at all; period. Sort of like the Founders said in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Then again, that this thread even exists is almost enough evidence that we should restrict the speech of stupid people who think free speech should be restricted.

 

[Mac-7]

Whether it was good or bad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that constitution was created by these men as were our laws for nearly 50 years. Thomas Paine pointed out that American aristocracy is painfully out of touch with the citizenry. And in fact, many of our Founding Fathers were, in fact, aristocrats who saw the world far differently than their bonded servants, share croppers, tenants, and tradesman. These aristocrats were primarily concern with their freedom from England for themselves. While they supported basic rights in constitution at the same time they were opposed to allowing the common people to choose our nations leaders. What they saw of democracy in Europe they did not like. Aristocrats handing from lamp posts was certainly on their mind.

Founders such as Jefferson saw the common man as the heart of the nation and he was intent on seeing a constitution that provided equal rights for all. However, when it came to selecting the leadership of the nation, most founders believe the leaders should be selected by new states. How they did that would be left to the states. Thus the constitution has little to say about voting other than the states selection electors who would vote on the president, state legislatures would pick senators and the people would select the members of House. They left it entirely up the states to decide who exactly were "the people" that would be voting. As a result only about 20% to 25% of the people were allowed to vote but due to various laws and regulations in the states, the actually number voting was considering less. Thus the privileged few selected the nations leadership and would for many years

The end of control by the aristocrats came with the election of Jackson. For the first time non-properly owners were allowed to vote. This is considered by most historians as beginning of the age of the common man where control of government and much of business began shifting away from the aristocracy to the the self-made man.

You can write a thousand words and not change the fact that the American people owe everything we have to the Founders

The evidence of their foresight - the Constitution - has stood the test of time

 

[Flopper]

You can write a thousand words and not change the fact that the American people owe everything we have to the Founders

The evidence of their foresight - the Constitution - has stood the test of time

I wouldn't say we owed them everything but I do believe they did a good job considering the times they lived in where slavery was acceptable, stealing land and lives of native Americans wasn't a crime, and women's right were in reality defined by the states not the constitution. It would be 130 before all Americans enjoyed the rights of the founders.

It was the founders who laid the foundation for American but it was the people that followed that built America.

 

[Correll]

I wouldn't say we owed them everything but I do believe they did a good job considering the times they lived in where slavery was acceptable, stealing land and lives of native Americans wasn't a crime, and women's right were in reality defined by the states not the constitution. It would be 130 before all Americans enjoyed the rights of the founders.

It was the founders who laid the foundation for American but it was the people that followed that built America.

Your focus on teh negative is not helpful nor healthy.

 

[Flopper]

Your focus on teh negative is not helpful nor healthy.

I think not. We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals. They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today. Here are few:

1. I’d like to see Section 1, Article 2 changed to read, “No person except a citizen of the United States shall be eligible for the office of President.”

Think of all the remarkable Americans who have held high public office but have been constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency because they lacked a a parent who was “natural born citizen”

In short, the natural born phrase is unnecessary because of the steps necessary to become a citizens and also, time has shown that simply being a natural born citizen does not in anyway imply loyalty. This phrase has denied America of many fine well qualified leaders.

2. The balance of power between the states and federal government has shifted to far away from the states.
If I were able to amend the Constitution by a wave of a wand, I'd try to find some way to make the 10th Amendment more effective.

The rights of states have gradually been so eroded that it's creating a congestion of taxes and regulations and paper work. I would like to have a 10th Amendment on steroids – which would somehow cause our country and our jurisprudence to remember our federal structure, and realize that the central government is limited and that powers are reserved to the states.

3. A GUARANTEE FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE
Americans often talk about their “right” to vote. The reality is noted in cases like Bush v. Gore – that is; no affirmative federal right to vote exists. Instead, courts often defer to state-based voting laws and administration. Although Americans vote for one president, one U.S. representative, and usually one U.S. senator, every one of the greater than 3,000 counties in the United States can administer federal elections in a unique (and often inefficient) way.

4. BALANCE THE BUDGET
I know, just about everyone says its imposable and it may be, but this is the direction we should be going even it takes 100 years. I think all sides really know we should be doing this and I'm including democrats. A nation simply can not continue to spend more and more each year that it takes in.

5. NO LIFETIME JOBS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The creators of the court, which is not in constitution, ordained that justices would serve for life to make them independent of politics. I think we should replace it with a long, nonrenewable term of no more than 20 years. Furthermore, I believe the Chief Justice should not hold this position for life, but for a four-year term that would be renewable.

This reform would reduce the intensity of debate on court nominations because the stakes wouldn’t be so high; it would reduce pressure to appoint young judges who will spend the maximum amount of time on the court; it would reduce pressure on federal judges to avoid retirement lest a member of the opposite party appoint their replacement; and it would bring fresh blood and thinking into the judicial system.

6. MAKE PUBLIC SERVICE MANDATORY
I'd propose a Universal National Service amendment – a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied Americans ages 18 to 26 devote at least two years to the service of their nation. They could select a service activity from among a wide variety of U.S. military branches, civilian government (national, state, and local), and qualifying non-profit options. Everyone should contribute something of themselves, not just taxes, to the nation that has long been a beacon of hope and the envy of the world.

7. PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CAMPAIGNS
To get elected and to stay elected, politicians now have to spend much of their time, nearly half raising money and, thereby, becoming beholden to donors. The current system is, by its very nature, corrupt and those who campaign are almost inescapably corrupted.

The amendment should authorize Congress to regulate and finance primary and general elections for the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It should require that all private contributors be listed by name within a matter of days. The wording should allow direct funding for campaigns, public funds to match private contributions, caps on total campaign spending, bars on campaign spending by outside groups.

9 Changes to the Constitution – How Would You Change It?

How would you change the Constitution, if you could? The Fiscal Times reached out to a number of experts for their insight and input. The results might surprise you.

www.thefiscaltimes.com

 

[Correll]

I think not. We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals. They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today. Here are few:
....

You raise two broad categories of point(s) which I will address separately.


Our current trend in society is not to think of them as perfect, but to deconstruct our civilization to nothing. We are not suffering from excess pride, but so mired in doubt and confusion that assholes can kneel during the Nation Anthem and people pretend it is patriotic.

Hell, the FLYING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG, has been declared "problematic" and/or "wacist" by many, and the many that seem to be driving our direction.


I fully expect in my life time, and sooner rather than later, that the Founding Fathers will get the same treatment that the Confederates are getting now, where we will be in a situation where the next and all following generations will not be taught that they were "mortal", but that they were utter fiends, and anything and everything they did, needs to be "canceled".

 

[westwall]

The problem is Facebook is neither a monopoly, nor a government entity. If you don't like the way they play, don't play with them. That's pretty easy. You can dbefore?

Government enters into an agreement with fascistbook to censor opposing viewpoints.

Major media ONLY quotes fascistbook in their news stories.

That is government directed propaganda comrade. Doesn't matter if you want to play or not, they are now the only game in town.

 

[dblack]

Government enters into an agreement with fascistbook to censor opposing viewpoints.

As long as it's a voluntary arrangement, that's their right.

Major media ONLY quotes fascistbook in their news stories.

That's a silly claim. It's not true.

That is government directed propaganda comrade. Doesn't matter if you want to play or not, they are now the only game in town.

They're really not the only game in town. Not sure how you got that idea.

Regardless what's your solution (that doesn't involve even more government mandates and regulations)?

 

[Correll]

I think not. We need to understand that the founders were mere mortals. They had no crystal to the future and they were certainly effected by an environment that no longer exists today Most of the constitution is certain relevant today but there are places where clarification is needed and changes that reflect American today. Here are few:

1. I’d like to see Section 1, Article 2 changed to read, “No person except a citizen of the United States shall be eligible for the office of President.”

Think of all the remarkable Americans who have held high public office but have been constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency because they lacked a a parent who was “natural born citizen”

In short, the natural born phrase is unnecessary because of the steps necessary to become a citizens and also, time has shown that simply being a natural born citizen does not in anyway imply loyalty. This phrase has denied America of many fine well qualified leaders.

The left has been for some time now, CONSTANTLY using language that strongly implies, that ANY limitation on foreigners having full access to all the rights of citizens, is "not inclusive" or "Wacist" and thus taboo.

This paradigm is killing this country and needs fought against at every turn.


NO.

2. The balance of power between the states and federal government has shifted to far away from the states.
If I were able to amend the Constitution by a wave of a wand, I'd try to find some way to make the 10th Amendment more effective.

The rights of states have gradually been so eroded that it's creating a congestion of taxes and regulations and paper work. I would like to have a 10th Amendment on steroids – which would somehow cause our country and our jurisprudence to remember our federal structure, and realize that the central government is limited and that powers are reserved to the states.

I would support that. Consider bundling it with a removal of the 17th amendment. That would give a ton of power back to the states.

3. A GUARANTEE FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE
Americans often talk about their “right” to vote. The reality is noted in cases like Bush v. Gore – that is; no affirmative federal right to vote exists. Instead, courts often defer to state-based voting laws and administration. Although Americans vote for one president, one U.S. representative, and usually one U.S. senator, every one of the greater than 3,000 counties in the United States can administer federal elections in a unique (and often inefficient) way.

I have no problem with denying the vote to criminal felons. I look at history and I see no real benefit from the constant extending of the franchise. Most 18 year olds are morons. Their input is mostly nothing but giving Hollywood and their teachers extra votes.

4. BALANCE THE BUDGET
I know, just about everyone says its imposable and it may be, but this is the direction we should be going even it takes 100 years. I think all sides really know we should be doing this and I'm including democrats. A nation simply can not continue to spend more and more each year that it takes in.

A line item veto, maybe back in the 70s, would have given the President more power and maybe helped with the debt.

Today? I think it is too late. Resolving this issue, will take a reckoning, on a scale of a major war. At best. And it won't be a controlled landing.

5. NO LIFETIME JOBS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
The creators of the court, which is not in constitution, ordained that justices would serve for life to make them independent of politics. I think we should replace it with a long, nonrenewable term of no more than 20 years. Furthermore, I believe the Chief Justice should not hold this position for life, but for a four-year term that would be renewable.

This reform would reduce the intensity of debate on court nominations because the stakes wouldn’t be so high; it would reduce pressure to appoint young judges who will spend the maximum amount of time on the court; it would reduce pressure on federal judges to avoid retirement lest a member of the opposite party appoint their replacement; and it would bring fresh blood and thinking into the judicial system.

You're trying for a work around to avoid dealing with the problem that the Political Class is not doing it's job. No system can make up for the fact that people in it, don't believe in the system or care about their responsibilities.

No.

6. MAKE PUBLIC SERVICE MANDATORY
I'd propose a Universal National Service amendment – a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied Americans ages 18 to 26 devote at least two years to the service of their nation. They could select a service activity from among a wide variety of U.S. military branches, civilian government (national, state, and local), and qualifying non-profit options. Everyone should contribute something of themselves, not just taxes, to the nation that has long been a beacon of hope and the envy of the world.

Fuck no. One of the big problems of our democracy, that is TOO democratic, is that politicians buy votes with public funds. As our spending has EXCEEDED our ability to pay, this is the cause of the deficit and debt. Letting them extract forced labor from the people will just give them another "revenue" stream to use to buy votes.

I see a real danger of a us moving to a two tier society with the lower class... quite oppressed and enslaved by debt.

This would just hit the turbo to that, like mach 12.

7. PUBLIC FINANCING FOR CAMPAIGNS
To get elected and to stay elected, politicians now have to spend much of their time, nearly half raising money and, thereby, becoming beholden to donors. The current system is, by its very nature, corrupt and those who campaign are almost inescapably corrupted.

The amendment should authorize Congress to regulate and finance primary and general elections for the presidency, the House, and the Senate. It should require that all private contributors be listed by name within a matter of days. The wording should allow direct funding for campaigns, public funds to match private contributions, caps on total campaign spending, bars on campaign spending by outside groups.

Too late. The system and the people in it are too corrupt to trust with the money to do this. They would use this to keep out real change. Trump would NEVER have gotten funding, for one example. Hell, SANDERS might have been denied.

9 Changes to the Constitution – How Would You Change It?

How would you change the Constitution, if you could? The Fiscal Times reached out to a number of experts for their insight and input. The results might surprise you.

www.thefiscaltimes.com

 

[westwall]

As long as it's a voluntary arrangement, that's their right.


That's a silly claim. It's not true.


They're really not the only game in town. Not sure how you got that idea.

Regardless what's your solution (that doesn't involve even more government mandates and regulations)?

No, it isn't. Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.

 

[dblack]

No, it isn't. Government entering into agreements with private companies to control information is an outright violation of the COTUS, and is fascism personified.

Nah. It's just not. It might be reason to bail on FB, if you're still on there. But as long as there's nothing forcing them to comply, it's not unconstitutional.

 

[toobfreak]

Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?​

In a truly free society, the only limit to freedom of speech should be at that point where your speech begins to seriously impact or impose upon the liberties of others. For instance, one shouldn't be free to spread lies about another, that is slander.

Conversely, freedom of the Press should extend to being free to investigate and report on all that government does, but that freedom too should be limited to the facts and accuracy---- for instance, the Press shouldn't be free to make up stories or lie about events or people, and should be clear to the reader of what they truly KNOW and what is hearsay or opinion, and there should be stiff penalties for printing or spreading blatant misinformation to discourage such a thing.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Would you be ok with appointing Donald Trump the chief regulator of speech: what's free and what isn't?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nah. It's just not. It might be reason to bail on FB, if you're still on there. But as long as there's nothing forcing them to comply, it's not unconstitutional.

If the government is involved, it's unconstitutional.