The Bill of Rights is not a Suicide Pact.

[22lcidw]

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.

Things have changed big time. Many of the Deplorables who you see as yokels actually greased your wheels by being Americans. They are tired of you. You take and take and take ang give nothing back. And you take phrases like that and reverse it. I still do not understand a inner city areas saying '''Give back to the Community"''. .Like it is owed. The cities, states and federal government have put endless resources into these areas. And the only solution is if any have gentrified.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Things have changed big time. Many of the Deplorables who you see as yokels actually greased your wheels by being Americans. They are tired of you. You take and take and take ang give nothing back. And you take phrases like that and reverse it. I still do not understand a inner city areas saying '''Give back to the Community"''. .Like it is owed. The cities, states and federal government have put endless resources into these areas. And the only solution is if any have gentrified.

Things have changed and it's made you mad.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

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

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.

Yes it can. You have the Right to Free Speech. But that right does not give you the right to stand on my front yard shouting. I can restrain your rights on my private property.

That is true even if my Property is a business open to the public. It can be closed to you even if it is open to everyone else.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'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"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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.

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.

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.

"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."

Right. How DARE posters try to express their own "misinformation". Don't they know that MSM has an official government sanctioned monopoly on all misinformation and propaganda!? The NERVE of some people!

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom.

Right. The People protested for freedom which makes it necessary to take away Rights and freedoms and demand they abide by whatever we consider to be self-respect personal responsibility. How DARE they think they have a right to define these things for themselves.

"We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct."

Why can't they all see that nobody will suffer if they simply do whatever I tell them to? Otherwise they're toast.

 

[9thIDdoc]

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

The government may not force a private entity to publish anything. THAT would be a 1st Amendment violation. Forcing Twitter to allow Trump to tweet would be such a violation.

Actually the civil rights acts do indeed force businesses to act in ways they may not wish to. Otherwise they could discriminate based race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc. nor would they retain a right to deny service to smokers, armed people, etc. Then there is the matter of taxes, building codes, health codes, etc. The government does (rightly or wrongly) indeed maintain as tight a control of private businesses as they wish. Think government can't condemn private property?

 

[konradv]

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

The government may not force a private entity to publish anything. THAT would be a 1st Amendment violation. Forcing Twitter to allow Trump to tweet would be such a violation.

Actually the civil rights acts do indeed force businesses to act in ways they may not wish to. Otherwise they could discriminate based race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc. nor would they retain a right to deny service to smokers, armed people, etc. Then there is the matter of taxes, building codes, health codes, etc. The government does (rightly or wrongly) indeed maintain as tight a control of private businesses as they wish. Think government can't condemn private property?

Food and accommodations aren't part of the 1st Amendment. That has nothing to do with the government(Trump) attempting to force a private company to accept his clearly political speech.

 

[9thIDdoc]

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

The government may not force a private entity to publish anything. THAT would be a 1st Amendment violation. Forcing Twitter to allow Trump to tweet would be such a violation.

Actually the civil rights acts do indeed force businesses to act in ways they may not wish to. Otherwise they could discriminate based race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc. nor would they retain a right to deny service to smokers, armed people, etc. Then there is the matter of taxes, building codes, health codes, etc. The government does (rightly or wrongly) indeed maintain as tight a control of private businesses as they wish. Think government can't condemn private property?

Food and accommodations aren't part of the 1st Amendment. That has nothing to do with the government(Trump) attempting to force a private company to accept his clearly political speech.

Did I limit my statement to food and accommodations? I don't think so. I will defend what I actually wrote; not your edited version.
The first Amendment gives a Right to the People; not governments. Where exactly does the Constitution say the people lose the Right of free speech in the areas you claim?
Do you think President Trump is the only government private business is controlled by? I don't think so. You risk offending Pelosi AOC and a host of others including members of local, county and State governments and I certainly don't agree.

 

[Gdjjr]

LOL, right, it only mattered Roberts did and that Bush was a fool for nominating him. Never mind that Trump's own nominee's didn't support him.

They do what their masters tell them- even Trump succumbed to them, stupid, except trying to bring troops home- that's the only thing he's done not according to the puppet masters in Israel- this shit show is about personality politics. Period. Full Stop.

The money in campaign coffers (retiremnemt port folios) is the agenda the crowd in the Democrat party of liars and cheats and whores- running a little ahead, but not by much, of the Republicans in the District of Criminals- I call it that for a reason. Because it is true.

 

[Gdjjr]

The government does (rightly or wrongly) indeed maintain as tight a control of private businesses as they wish.

Are you talking about China? That does sound like communism- or fascist, or nazi- can that happen the land of the free?

 

[pknopp]

LOL, right, it only mattered Roberts did and that Bush was a fool for nominating him. Never mind that Trump's own nominee's didn't support him.

They do what their masters tell them- even Trump succumbed to them, stupid, except trying to bring troops home- that's the only thing he's done not according to the puppet masters in Israel- this shit show is about personality politics. Period. Full Stop.

He didn't try. His words there are as worthless as were his Mexico wall words. It was Trump's call. He never made it.

Trump: I'm going to bring the troops home.

GOP: No your not.

Trump: No, I'm not.

 

[Gdjjr]

He didn't try. His words there are as worthless as were his Mexico wall words. It was Trump's call. He never made it.

Trump: I'm going to bring the troops home.

GOP: No your not.

Trump: No, I'm not.

And again you prove my point(s) for me- personality politics- thanks, stupid.

 

[Dana7360]

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.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

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

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.

Please show me that law.

It certainly isn't in the constitution or first Amendment.

The very first word of that amendment should be your first clue.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

The civil rights of a nation were violated when the left stole the presidential election for Corrupt Joe Biden.
You're welcome for the lesson, dumb ass!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Was Trump's speech "dangerous" and "false"? On both counts the answer is obviously no.

 

[Blues Man]

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.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

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

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.

the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,

no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.

If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.

seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?

People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.

 

[Blues Man]

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

The government may not force a private entity to publish anything. THAT would be a 1st Amendment violation. Forcing Twitter to allow Trump to tweet would be such a violation.

I agree.

The First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law..."

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Not illegal but they sure as hell can ban you from ever coming in their theater again.

and that is 100% their right.

You are not guaranteed a venue in which to exercise your right to free speech nor are you guaranteed an audience

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.

seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?

People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.

Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.

 

[Blues Man]

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.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

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

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.

Yes it can. You have the Right to Free Speech. But that right does not give you the right to stand on my front yard shouting. I can restrain your rights on my private property.

That is true even if my Property is a business open to the public. It can be closed to you even if it is open to everyone else.

you are not violating a person's right to free speech if you tell him to leave your property.

There is no no guaranteed right to trespass