The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[NYcarbineer]

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

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

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

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?

I am for a law that protects children.

I am too but the OP is strongly implying that such a law, if it does not comply - to the letter - with the wording of the 1st Amendment,

is unconstitutional. Is she right or wrong?

 

[jknowgood]

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

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

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?

I am for a law that protects children.

I am too but the OP is strongly implying that such a law, if it does not comply - to the letter - with the wording of the 1st Amendment,

is unconstitutional. Is she right or wrong?

With child pornography, she is wrong.

 

[Impenitent]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

 

[Kosh]

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?

You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.

If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?

 

[Kosh]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

 

[Vigilante]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

I see the HYPOCRISY of the Progressive left is still alive and well!

 

[Moonglow]

Oh the far left believes in freedom of speech as long as that speech has the far left stamp of approval..

This message has been deleted...

If the far left drones had their way it would be...

This message,,deleted also....

 

[Moonglow]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

I see the HYPOCRISY of the Progressive left is still alive and well!

This message,,cut it also....

 

[Kosh]

Oh the far left believes in freedom of speech as long as that speech has the far left stamp of approval..

This message has been deleted...

If the far left drones had their way it would be...

This message,,deleted also....

Not yet, but I like I said if the far left had it's way, it would be..

Need be glad the far left does not have the power they wish they wanted..

 

[Moonglow]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

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.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

 

[rdean]

1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.

Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first 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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'




2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.


a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog



Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?

And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?




3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?


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,..."




4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

 

[Kosh]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

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.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

God to Adam: "Hey Adam quick playing with that, I have something to show you over here."

 

[jknowgood]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

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.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

Gay marriage has been going on since Adam and eve? Wow what happened last year?

 

[Kosh]

1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.

Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first 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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'




2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.


a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog



Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?

And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?




3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?


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,..."




4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

Another far left drone and rushes in their propaganda not connected to reality..

 

[Camp]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You are a far left drone that is upset that child porn in illegal.

If that is the case you want to make why put people away for murder? or for domestic violence? after all they were just expressing themselves right?

Try to be reasonable for once in your life. I'm not the one arguing that child porn laws are unconstitutional. The OP is strongly implying they are because they abridge free speech and freedom of the press.

Why don't reread the OP and see if I'm not correct.

 

[jknowgood]

1. Our first lesson today involves the nexus of grammar and of civics. The lesson goes beyond syntax, the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language, and centers on why, out of all the choices, particular words are used.

Begin with alpha and omega of America, the Constitution, and, perhaps, the best know portion of the Constitution, the first 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.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

Not 'just a few laws'....or 'shouldn't abridge'.....because the Founders had no intention of forming a government based on 'whatever government says, goes.'




2. OK...here is the problem. An argument can be made that there are certain acceptable limits.... Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. pretty much nailed it with the 'no shouting fire' comment.
But.... once the camel has his nose under the tent, human being do what they do best: rationalize. They make reasonable arguments increasing, more and more, the things government won't/shouldn't allow to be said.


a. Kind of like the apocryphal example of the frog in cold water...
" There's an old folk warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water he will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog dozehappily . . .in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up."
snopes.com Slow Boiled Frog



Regulating speech to any degree is raising the temperature on the American electorate: how much of the 'heat' can we stand, before we're not America any longer?
How much 'regulation' of free speech?

And who benefits from said 'regulation'???
Have you noticed which party is regularly behind said 'regulation'?




3. So....what value is the first amendment..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..." ?
Answer: we have to stop well before we reach the boiling point....after all....who really suffers from luke warm water?


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,..."




4. As Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist so correctly said:
" Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


(Justice Rehnquist was not of the party under discussion here.....)

Republicans are book burners. The only free speech they want it hate speech.

Republican Book Burners Politics Plus

The only free speech liberals want, is only what you agree with.

 

[Kosh]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

Right on cue another far left drone comment not based on reality..

Another right winger trapped in hypocrisy. Automatically took the side of the OP without realizing it was the opposite of Koshology. Oops if we follow the PC idea in the OP kiddy porn has to be accepted and allowed. Well no, Koshology allows for selected exceptions. Koshology experts will determine when the PC interpretation of the constitution can be ignored. We will form a panel or court and call it KSCOTUS.

And another far left drone that does not only understand the OP, but does not understand the Constitution..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And focus like a laser on this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
No wiggle room there...'no law.'

DOA, since there are many laws. How long before you little morons learn that your rights come from the government, and have limitations?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is the OP right or wrong? Are laws against child porn unconstitutional. She's implying they are.

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

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?

I am for a law that protects children.

I am too but the OP is strongly implying that such a law, if it does not comply - to the letter - with the wording of the 1st Amendment,

is unconstitutional. Is she right or wrong?

With child pornography, she is wrong.

Of course she's wrong, more broadly speaking, to think that the 1st Amendment, or any other amendment, is somehow closed to interpretation.