The Bill of Rights is not a Suicide Pact.

JLW

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2012
14,136
14,487
2,405
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”





'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:


A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech and other constitutional rights.

Free speech, like liberty at large, requires that the public exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

Thus companies have to exercise that restraint and responsibility, which is their right.

All to our detriment.

We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
 
Last edited:
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.
My point went over your head. LOL
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.
My point went over your head. LOL
no it didn't because no one has less freedom you all have the exact same amount as you had before.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

Which is always my argument. If someone gets hurt though, then it becomes illegal.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.
The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

Good work, Morons.

Months of leftist Anti-fa and BLM riots and property damage organized over the very platforms now un-personing those on the right, and you bitch when people on the right try to create their own platforms.

You are blaming the victim here, like any good lefty cuck cocksucker.

Free Speech requires worthless authoritarian losers like you to fucking die.

\
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

and the lefty "fuck the police" mantra hasn't gotten anyone hurt?

Fuck you.
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

All over a spoiled little man with the mindset of a 12 year old.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.
The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

and the lefty "fuck the police" mantra hasn't gotten anyone hurt?

Fuck you.

Anyone that harms another can be and most often is arrested.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

Which is always my argument. If someone gets hurt though, then it becomes illegal.

no because the person will not be arrested for shouting fire he will be arrested for inciting a panic (maybe).

And this is a horrible example to use anyway. If someone stood up in a movie or a Broadway theater and shouted fire he would be pelted with popcorn and various other food items and thrown out of the theater by security
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

All over a spoiled little man with the mindset of a 12 year old.

No, all this of a political persuasion that prefers to silence it's opponents rather then debate them.
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.
The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

and the ruling on case he was commenting on was overturned
 
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”



***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
The actions of the president and his fellow conspirators facilitated the air of distrust and anger that fomented over a two month period and after their failed attempt to disrupt a legal vote in the halls of Congress. This is a simple case of them trying to violate the civil rights of a nation because their guy lost.

All over a spoiled little man with the mindset of a 12 year old.
Yes, and you see who claimed to be the adult in the room is no longer the adult in the room. Donate your stimulus check to: FlatCan care of USMB.
 
Last edited:
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

and the lefty "fuck the police" mantra hasn't gotten anyone hurt?

Fuck you.

Anyone that harms another can be and most often is arrested.

So why haven't AOC et al been arrested yet?
 
I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.
The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

and the ruling on case he was commenting on was overturned
Yet you can't cite the case or the judge, how convenient.
 

Forum List

Back
Top