Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[dblack]

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

That's what both sides are asking for.

 

[dblack]

If the government is involved, it's unconstitutional.

Do you have any reason for saying that? Any opinion from a court, or a Constitutional expert? My understanding is that it's no different than the government recommending that everyone get vaccinated. They're asking Facebook to help beat back all the propaganda, foreign and domestic, that is undermining our efforts to fight the pandemic. Facebook et. al. are under no obligation to comply. If the government turns around and tries to slap regulations on them, or changes the laws to punish them for not complying, that would be unconstitutional. But the ask is not.

 

[Flopper]

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.




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.




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.





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.




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.




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.






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.

1. I don't see why a US citizen born in Atlanta, Dallas, New York or Los Angles should be more qualified to run for president than a US Citizen born born in Tokyo, London, Rome, or Sydney. The merits of the candidate should be determine by the people, not a clause in the constitution that is based erroneous on the belief that a US citizen born abroad will be less capable or less loyal that a US citizen born in the US.

People who legally immigrated to the US typically face many obstacles that native born American will never face such as: separation from friends, family, work and their home, getting the money needed to relocate, getting new employment and housing, all while learning a new language and adapting to a new culture, and dealing with prejudice and often hatred. Immigrants earn the right to call themselves Americans. Those born in the US do nothing.

2. I don't see how removing the 17th amendment would give more power to the states. Removing the amendment transfers the power to elect Senators from the people to the legislature of a state which means that a senate seat would become a political pawn in the legislature where party loyalty and tenure far out weight qualifications.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Do you have any reason for saying that? Any opinion from a court, or a Constitutional expert? My understanding is that it's no different than the government recommending that everyone get vaccinated. They're asking Facebook to help beat back all the propaganda, foreign and domestic, that is undermining our efforts to fight the pandemic. Facebook et. al. are under no obligation to comply. If the government turns around and tries to slap regulations on them, or changes the laws to punish them for not complying, that would be unconstitutional. But the ask is not.

Typically, the people who want the government to limit free speech are Leftists and they would never stand for Trump to be the chief decider of those limits. Just like I would never stand for Pelosi to fill that roll. The point being: who gets to regulate speech?

 

[dblack]

Typically, the people who want the government to limit free speech are Leftists and they would never stand for Trump to be the chief decider of those limits. Just like I would never stand for Pelosi to fill that roll. The point being: who gets to regulate speech?

That doesn't answer my question. But I'll answer yours: not government.

 

[EvMetro]

They're asking Facebook to help

In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

That doesn't answer my question. But I'll answer yours: not government.

Who, then?

 

[dblack]

Who, then?

Anyone but government.

 

[Correll]

1. I don't see why a US citizen born in Atlanta, Dallas, New York or Los Angles should be more qualified to run for president than a US Citizen born born in Tokyo, London, Rome, or Sydney. The merits of the candidate should be determine by the people, not a clause in the constitution that is based erroneous on the belief that a US citizen born abroad will be less capable or less loyal that a US citizen born in the US.

People who legally immigrated to the US typically face many obstacles that native born American will never face such as: separation from friends, family, work and their home, getting the money needed to relocate, getting new employment and housing, all while learning a new language and adapting to a new culture, and dealing with prejudice and often hatred. Immigrants earn the right to call themselves Americans. Those born in the US do nothing.

2. I don't see how removing the 17th amendment would give more power to the states. Removing the amendment transfers the power to elect Senators from the people to the legislature of a state which means that a senate seat would become a political pawn in the legislature where party loyalty and tenure far out weight qualifications.

1. Too much immigration is the problem, not giving even more to immigrants. Arhnold is not worth the trouble.

2. It makes Senators beholding to the States more.

 

[Flopper]

1. Too much immigration is the problem, not giving even more to immigrants. Arnold is not worth the trouble.

2. It makes Senators beholding to the States more.

1. The issue is not the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country. It's whether voters will be allowed to decide if a non-native born citizen is qualified to be president.

2. It makes Senators beholding to the politicians in legislature.

 

[Correll]

1. The issue is not the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country. It's whether voters will be allowed to decide if a non-native born citizen is qualified to be president.

2. It makes Senators beholding to the politicians in legislature.

1. The issue is the number of immigrants to be allowed into the country. Pushing to give them MORE, instead of pushing to get a reasonable number of them, is a bad idea.


2. The State legislatures, and state politicians.

 

[my2¢]

I believe the current limits on free speech are fine or in other words, I don't want the limits to be extended beyond what they are today.

 

[Flopper]

I believe the current limits on free speech are fine or in other words, I don't want the limits to be extended beyond what they are today.

Exactly what are those limits

 

[Rigby5]

Exactly what are those limits

There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech.
The fact you can be sued or charge for harm caused by libel, slander, inciting violence, bearing false witness, etc., is all AFTER the fact.
The principle is called "prior restraint" and it is illegal.
You can never legally censor anything from adults, and can only sue or prosecute for damages later.

Here is one of the more famous examples:
{...
The most famous prior restraint case is New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Nixon Administration sought to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories from leaked classified documents called the Pentagon Papers, a Department of Defense study of U.S. decision-making before and during the conflict in Vietnam.
...}

And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.
People harmed can sue after the fact, but legally nothing can ever be censored.
Only a judge can legally censor anything.

 

[dblack]

And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.

This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.

This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.

 

[HenryBHough]

You're free to say anything you like so long as you accept that being "ffensive" to any liberal means you are subject ot assault; your family to threatening; your home to arson. Just a few minor inconveniences.....

Oh, to complain is offensive and probably racist.

 

[Flopper]

There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech.
The fact you can be sued or charge for harm caused by libel, slander, inciting violence, bearing false witness, etc., is all AFTER the fact.
The principle is called "prior restraint" and it is illegal.
You can never legally censor anything from adults, and can only sue or prosecute for damages later.

Here is one of the more famous examples:
{...
The most famous prior restraint case is New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Nixon Administration sought to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing stories from leaked classified documents called the Pentagon Papers, a Department of Defense study of U.S. decision-making before and during the conflict in Vietnam.
...}

And this included private services like Twitter and FaceBook, that are bound by FCC regulations to not discriminate against the political ideas of anyone, regardless if they may be wrong or even harmful.
People harmed can sue after the fact, but legally nothing can ever be censored.
Only a judge can legally censor anything.

You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
"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"

So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech. It addressed only the actions of congress. In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress. As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to actions of federal, state, and local, government.

Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces. In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree. Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.

 

[Rigby5]

This is a frequent claim lately, but it's not been established. In any case, if it is established, it would be a gross overreach by the FCC.

This anti-discrimination shit is, and always had been, an abuse of state power. And it's the driving force, the twisted logic, behind so many other ill-conceived attempts to control people. The campaign by Trumpsters, and other liberals, to use it to justify state control of social media is only the latest example.

I can't make sense of what you mean?
What I am saying is there are laws against discrimination, including against censorship of political ideas you do not agree with.
So then the FCC regulations prevent censorship on any media it has authority over, such as the internet and all its service providers.
So then Twitter and Facebook can not legally censor anything.
If someone dislikes, disagrees with, or thinks something is harmful, then the only legal recourse is to prosecute or sue AFTER the fact.
The prior restraint of censorship is entirely and completely illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

You should go back and read the 1st amendment.
"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"

So in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, congress could not pass a law that viliorated your right to freedom speech. It addressed only the actions of congress. In the coming years it became clear that the founders had more in mind than just protecting the people from congress. As a result federal court rulings, federal laws, state constitutions and state laws, extended the protection to actions of federal, state, and local, government.

Generally, there is no right to free speech in private workplaces. In addition, there are a number of other limitations such as speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree. Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.

ORIGINALLY the Bill of Rights only limited or applied to restrictions on the federal government.
But not after the 14th amendment.
After that, the Bill of Rights and other things are used in order to discover inherent individual rights by the shadow they cast on the Bill of Rights. Known as the Penumbra Effect.
{...
In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3] Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.[4]
...}
Also the principle of Incorporation applies.
{...
The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Incorporation applies both substantively and procedurally. Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so.

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court favored a process called “selective incorporation.” Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court would incorporate certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once.
...}
The general idea is that the basis for law really is the abstraction of what historically has been the accepted concept of individual rights, and is not the arbitrary edicts found in legislation

 

[Rigby5]

So when you say, "There is not supposed to be any limit at all on free speech", I must disagree. Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute in the US or in most other countries.

I did not say there are no limits on free speech.
What I said is that prior restraint is illegal.
So you must let them speak, even if what they say is illegal.
You can then only prosecute or sue later, after then have spoken.
It is illegal to prevent their speech, even if harmful.
That is not up to you to decide, and only a judge can.