The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[BluesLegend]

Well liberals throwing out extreme idiotic examples to deflect was entirely predictable.

Really, isn't any example, no matter insane it is, that is outlawed against the OP?

What's so extreme about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to watch people run? Or calling in a fake fire report to watch the fire department and cops respond? Sounds like what a kid would do for fun to me, and they are both illegal.

And there you have it, another example ^^^

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

Some do, but no more than the GOP. I don't fear it at all, and would place very few limits on it, and I vote for the Dems so now you know.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again the OP has created yet another thread that fails as a straw man fallacy, in addition to exhibiting her ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Moonglow]

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well liberals throwing out extreme idiotic examples to deflect was entirely predictable.

Really, isn't any example, no matter insane it is, that is outlawed against the OP?

What's so extreme about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to watch people run? Or calling in a fake fire report to watch the fire department and cops respond? Sounds like what a kid would do for fun to me, and they are both illegal.

And there you have it, another example ^^^

There's nothing extreme about that, or fighting words, or inciting a riot, and threatening to kill the President. It's just words right? Aren't adults supposed to be able to handle that? Why do we only give money for family planning organizations overseas if they don't mention abortion, which they are restricted from doing? Aren't we a nation that believes in Free Speech?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For a second just think about all the left wing rants against Fox. Not a day goes by that the left doesn't whine about Fox. The right wing might criticize a statement made by a so-called journalist on an alphabet network but almost nobody on the right criticizes a news network. The rants against Fox are an example of the left's war against information. Sometimes the low information left looks like they don't have a brain in their heads. All they do is regurgitate Huffington blogs based on Media Matters hatred of Fox.

Lose the NYT to get rid of Fox? That might just be worth the trade-off.

A well-known desire of the Left is to minimize, silence, abridge.....the speech it opposes.

Your post verifies the title of the thread.

Thanks.

Fox is technically Free Speech, but it's actually Propaganda. I'm not a fan of propaganda but the US is pretty damn good at it, at least during war it is.

What a great opportunity to remind all of the provenance of propaganda: the Progressives!


The first true enterprise of this kind was established in the in the United States under the 20th century’s first fascist dictator: Woodrow Wilson. During WW I, under the Progressive Woodrow Wilson, American was a fascist nation.

a. Had the world’s first modern propaganda ministry

b. Political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon and thrown in jail for simply expressing private opinions.

c. The national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous ‘poison’ into the American bloodstream

1. Newspapers and magazines were closed for criticizing the government

e. Almost 100,000 government propaganda agents were sent out to whip up support for the regime and the war

f. College professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues

g. Nearly a quarter million ‘goons’ were given legal authority to beat and intimidate ‘slackers’ and dissenters

h. Leading artists and writers dedicated their work to proselytizing for the government.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Classical_Liberalism_vs_Modern_Liberal_Conservatism.pdf p. 9


Bet you'd like to delete that post.....
Put your foot in your mouth again, huh?

The Sedition Act of 1918 passed the H. of Rep. by a vote of 293 -1 and the 48 -26; it was repealed in 1920.

See: Sedition Act of 1918 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As usual PC posts what best feeds her story, and omits the facts which do not.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again the OP has created yet another thread that fails as a straw man fallacy, in addition to exhibiting her ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Yeppers. Missed by here to the moon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The democrats are fighting a hot war against civil rights. The constant assault on the 1st amendment under Obama is well known and well documented - the fascist ACA cannot survive along side freedom of religion, so Obama has famously attacked the concept of freedom of religion, placing the state as ruler of the church.

But democrats assault far more than just the 1st Amendment - the entire Bill of Rights is under siege by the authoritarian left in this nation. Freedom of association is a thing of the past as is the concept of double jeopardy. The openly criminal acts of the Administration in using the IRS to attack enemies of Obama, and the extortion scheme of the DOJ in harassing perfectly legal transactions to force banks not to engage in business with those the Administration seeks to attack.

decent people must rise against the fascist democrats and demand that they respect the United States Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And this also shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

I don't know that it is a matter of understanding, the democrats seek to crush the Constitution and replace it with the capricious rule whoever is in power at any moment. democrats seek for an Obama to rule with his word as the only law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.

Admit you lied.

I demand nothing less than penitential prostration.

Then I shall consider forgiving you.

 

[paperview]

PC's thread, in a nutshell.

PC: Let's talk about free Speech and how Congress is not allowed to make laws banning Free Speech

US: OK, what about the many laws that do ban certain forms of Free Speech?

PC: I'm not talking about that dummy, I'm talking how Congress is not allowed to make laws banning Free Speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

Since you have no idea what the issue is here you should probably just stop posting in this thread.

You keep proving that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,

the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.

Am I right or wrong?

Child pornography is not protected speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

 

[paperview]

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.

Admit you lied.

I demand nothing less than penitential prostration.

Then I shall consider forgiving you.

Prostrate this, *****.

You don't get to pick and chose that which entails Free Speech just because it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And PC cited Coulter, so the IQ just drops from here.

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Specifically what did I lie about?

The far left narrative you ran on when you blazed into thread. and also showing that you are upset that child porn in illegal..

Again, quote me where I said any such thing. Quote me where I implied any such thing.

In your first post on this thread..

Do you drones not remember what you post or do you just run the narrative?

Again

The Democrat War Against Free Speech US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Can you not read what is said there? Can you not understand it? Can you not see that the OP is implying that the 1st Amendment protects child porn if applied in the manner she advocates?

" Can you not see that the OP is implying...."

Ohhhhh,,,,,,,so you were lying when you said I 'brought up child porn...'


So....are you ready to change your avi to "NYLiar"?

Child pornography and its legality are not a 1st Amendment issue? You brought up ALL 1st amendment issues.

In New York v. Ferber,1132 the Court recognized another category of expression that is outside the coverage of the First Amendment, the pictorial representation of children in films or still photographs in a variety of sexual activities or exposures of the genitals. The basic reason such depictions could be prohibited was the governmental interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children whose participation in the production of these materials would subject them to exploitation and harm. The state may go beyond a mere prohibition on the use of the children, because it is not possible to protect children adequately without prohibiting the exhibition and dissemination of the materials and advertising about them. Thus, “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-case adjudication is required.”1133 But, since expression is involved, government must carefully define what conduct is to be prohibited and may reach only “works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age.”1134

That ruling conflicts directly with the stand you took in the OP, your 'no wiggle room' stand:

as you said:

"Every law, regulation, order, mandate, code, dictum, ordinance, should be held up to the specific language "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Care to admit you were wrong, or would you like to dig yourself in deeper?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Child pornography is not protected speech.

Yes, we know, but how does that apply to the OP's "no law" theory? How can there be a law when there can be no law?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC's thread, in a nutshell.

PC: Let's talk about free Speech and how Congress is not allowed to make laws banning Free Speech

US: OK, what about the many laws that do ban certain forms of Free Speech?

PC: I'm not talking about that dummy, I'm talking how Congress is not allowed to make laws banning Free Speech.

LOL. Good one...

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

You and your fellow democrats are at war to crush civil rights. Already speech that you find offensive against blacks, homosexuals, Muslim Terrorist, or whatever other favored group of the party, is openly criminalized. Obama has engaged in a prolonged attack on Christians, requiring two slap downs by the SCOTUS to reign in his criminal and unconstitutional behavior.

The fascist democrats are engaged in a war on civil rights and the Constitution in general. You seek an authoritarian state, ruled from Washington by a cult of personality.

 

[Kosh]

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

Since you have no idea what the issue is here you should probably just stop posting in this thread.

You keep proving that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

I understand the Constitution to mean that it is not unconstitutional to pass laws against child pornography,

the language of the 1st Amendment notwithstanding.

Am I right or wrong?

Child pornography is not protected speech.

And that explains why certain far left drones are upset about that..

 

[Moonglow]

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

We are doing better than the second term of Bush.....but for a pessimistic Darwin socialist, you'll never see the forest for the trees...