It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Argument that First Amendment only applies to Government not restricting speech

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
NM


edit on 22-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Of course there are consequences to what a person says, no one is arguing that.


I'll argue that. Speech has no consequences beyond the expelling of air from the esophagus, the dispersing of sound waves, and the application of ink to paper and pixels to screen.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
blocking off a highway so people couldn't get to the trump rally (and more than likely other places the people affected may of wished to go), was no a violation of trump's freedom of speech, since well, he was still free to say whatever he wished. what it was was an act that was probably quite illegal really, and a royal pain in the arse for all who had someplace to go who found the road blocked. it also endangered people lives and property, or had the potential to. the act in no way transgressed on trump's rights, it was the people who were on that highway who's rights were violated weather they were going to the rally, or just trying to make their way home, or work, or shopping, or whatever.

a few weeks ago, someone (maybe a bunch of kids, who knows, decided one night that it would be fun to go around and cut down a bunch of trees blocking off roads, by the time they were done, they had effectively blocked off communities along with 911 responders. let's say that one of the families that they worked so hard to block off had to meet with a person to discuss an issue that was important to both of them. would you focus on just how the person who this one family that couldn't make it to the meeting had his freedom of speech taken away, or would you focus on the overall effect it has on the communities involved?

and, I can, if I don't like what another person is saying, tell them to shut up, that is using my freedom of speech isn't it? but, if they don't and I decide to punch them out to shut them up, well, I ain't violating their freedom of speech, I am committing assault and should be arrested for it!



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

and, I can, if I don't like what another person is saying, tell them to shut up, that is using my freedom of speech isn't it? but, if they don't and I decide to punch them out to shut them up, well, I ain't violating their freedom of speech, I am committing assault and should be arrested for it!


Well-stated, perfectly-reasoned and to the point.

No one has said that the actions of some protesters were not illegal under the body of laws meant to protect individuals and the public peace ... in some rare cases they are.
edit on 22-3-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I agree with you here. I guess what my post was addressing is the fact that people now feel like they have the right to shutdown speech they don't agree with, so much so that they feel that the have the right to break the law to do so. My point is that we all have the right to say whatever we want, and people may not break the law to censor you, by using violence, trespassing, etc. This is happening at Universities all across the US and Canada, where many groups are barring people from speaking, or demanding safe spaces from people of certain color, or pulling fire alarms or attacking people that offer speech they do not agree with, or the people who want to hear that speech. The same is true of the Trump protesters. They honestly feel that they are justified in breaking the law because Trump does not have a right to say what he is saying. I was merely trying to point out that he does have the right to say these things, and people have the right to assemble and hear them.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I'm totally ok with shouting down the hatred and division coming from someone who has the audacity to bring reality-TV style idiocy (and education level) to our elective process. In recent events, sometimes the backlash goes a bit far (I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished for law-breaking). But when we are fighting against the worst knee-jerk bigoted & racist groupthink Americans can have, harsh measures are gonna be taken. I'm surprised it took this long for the masses to stand up to this bully and his crew of puppets. The people, massive amounts of American citizens, aren't gonna take it. And of course it's no big surprise that Trump's crew is out in force, clearing the path for a lovely blend of nationalism and fascism.

As stated & proven on other threads, so I'm not sure why it's coming up again... this isn't a 1st Amendment issue. This is about the principals our country was founded on, and the citizens that are pushing back against Trump, who is attempting to garner enough support to trample all over those principals.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: grey580

huh? You have no right to NOT hear something...You have the right to travel, so you don't have to hear something you don't want, but you have no right to stay where someone is exercising their right to free speech and prevent them from speaking...

Jaden


There's a problem with that.

What if you are in a church and trying to exercise your right to prayer.

And some jack hole comes into the church or stops outside the church and starts to yell out whatever he wants. Exercising his right to free speech.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
What if people want to attend, participate in a gay wedding and protestors block access to the church?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
or they want to allow their older gradeschool kids to be able to have a little independence and responsibility and allow them to make their own way the few blocks home from school but when they do, they have a bunch of pro-life people chasing them down the sidewalk.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian



I'm totally ok with shouting down the hatred and division coming from someone who has the audacity to bring reality-TV style idiocy (and education level) to our elective process. In recent events, sometimes the backlash goes a bit far (I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished for law-breaking). But when we are fighting against the worst knee-jerk bigoted & racist groupthink Americans can have, harsh measures are gonna be taken. I'm surprised it took this long for the masses to stand up to this bully and his crew of puppets. The people, massive amounts of American citizens, aren't gonna take it. And of course it's no big surprise that Trump's crew is out in force, clearing the path for a lovely blend of nationalism and fascism.

As stated & proven on other threads, so I'm not sure why it's coming up again... this isn't a 1st Amendment issue. This is about the principals our country was founded on, and the citizens that are pushing back against Trump, who is attempting to garner enough support to trample all over those principals.


The principles the country were founded upon are etched in the Constitution, which includes the first amendment.

You're "totally ok" with shouting down a free citizen running in a free election in a free society, under the specious guise that you are in fact shouting down "hatred and division", saving the American people from "someone who has the audacity to bring reality-TV style idiocy (and education level) to our elective process", and "fighting against the worst knee-jerk bigoted & racist groupthink Americans can have", ironically at the exact same time hate and division spews from your nonsensical rhetoric, ironically at the exact same time you you illicit the worst knee-jerk bigoted and conformist groupthink against your fellow countrymen, and at the at the exact same time you are repeating, parrot-like, the rhetoric of the mass-media, whom find your blind allegiance very lucrative.

Just like your reasoning is suspect, so are your "harsh measures", which is a round-about and surreptitious dismissal of the rule of law, in favor of, I can only assume, the anti-democratic inability and laziness towards combating political opposition legally and within the reasonable and accepted methods of discourse and debate.

I couldn't eat enough to vomit enough.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You are shoe horning free speech into a discussion about public nuisance.

If a group is meeting, and someone can shout so loud as to make them unheard, its a public nuisance and needs to be dealt with. That is why protesters are usually kept in separate groups...as a way to ensure the "peaceful right to assembly".



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
What if people want to attend, participate in a gay wedding and protestors block access to the church?


Should the police prevent crime, or only investigate/pursue its prosecution?

If they should prevent crime, if even in a passive way, they should clear entry into the church while allowing protesters to assemble peacefully.

But peaceful doesn't mean physically preventing someone from entering a public building.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

They did that to Mormon churches during the Prop 8 flap in Cali and everyone called them brave for harassing little old ladies.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
What if people want to attend, participate in a gay wedding and protestors block access to the church?


If the church and the people gathered there are freely taking part in their ceremony, then they have the right to do it and no one has any right to seek to stop them.

The protestors have the right to gather and protest, but they do not have the right to seek to prevent the event from taking place as a means of protesting it.

I believe these are sort of the same lines we have drawn with WBC that goes everywhere and protests everyone and no one likes them in return.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The entire Constitution spells out what the government can and cannot do. It doesn't spell out what the people can and cannot do. So your entire argument is moot since the 1st amendment applies to what the government can and cannot do in regards to speech, the press, and religion.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

a large enough can physically prevent people from entering a place or prevent them from doing something... just become immovable objects. that is a peaceful protest, which will block people at least until the police come and physically remove them, probably arrest them...
what you seem to want is the right to one's freedom to do whatever they like, as long as it's legal.. to be guarenteed to be unhindered. but, we also have a right to protest if enough of the public finds what you like to do is offensive and decides to let their feelings known, and well, maybe break a few laws if they are willing to accept the legal consequences for breaking them.
the westbero church is great about at pushing their rights to assemble and protest to the limit, even protesting vet funerals..without usually breaking any laws. we all find what they do offensive at least in some cases, but they do have the right to do it.. so well, some groups have decided to take it upon themselves to place themselves in between the church protestors and the grieving families of the vet. it's all legal, and within the rights of those who are protesting, or gathering to protect I do believe.

there's been several schools that have been very badly affected by the pro-life protesters, I would say targeted by them. I mentioned them chasing school kids down the street, which is part of what is in the complaint that has been filed by the school asking the court to do something. one of the protesters was convicted of planning a bombing or a abortion clinic and served his sentence even. Personally, I would like to see a counter protest take place there, provide a barrier so those kids could arrive and leave that school safely without being screamed at, shouted at, chased down, and exposed to pictures that no young child the age of some of these kids are going to be able to understand. the school is across the street from a building that is being constructed that will be a planned parenthood clinic. it's not even open yet, so these protesters aren't targeting the patients of this clinic, or the people who work there, they are targeting the kids... and consider this.... if your child is three or four years old and someone is yelling at them day after day that they are killing babies across the street in that big partially built building that has all these strange and scary sounds coming from it..... reckon, would he might be afraid to to go school??? this school, their kids, their parents have been putting up with this since the beginning of the school year. and as I far as I know, not much has been done. As far as I am concerned if schoolkids could be traumatized like this in the name of free speech, well, the danged politicians, and those going to their rallies, can put up with the mild headache of some protesters creating a headache by blocking a road.
And yes, it appears that the school is still being targeting...

www.washingtonpost.com... e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?tid=a_inl



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, the first Amendment is there to protect political speech.

If we get it in our heads that it is perfectly acceptable to simply prevent people from expressing political opinions we don't like rather than confronting those ideas and winning the debate, then we might as well let the government outlaw certain arenas of political thought. It's the same thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, the first Amendment is there to protect political speech.

If we get it in our heads that it is perfectly acceptable to simply prevent people from expressing political opinions we don't like rather than confronting those ideas and winning the debate, then we might as well let the government outlaw certain arenas of political thought. It's the same thing.


No it is there to prevent Congress from squelching speech. Yes political speech was what was in mind when this was written, but the point I'm making is that the first amendment exists to limit Congress' (government's) ability to regulate/ban speech. It has nothing to do with social or economic consequences of your speech.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then if all it takes is to shut down someone's ability to speak, why does anyone allow anyone to speak at all anymore anywhere in this country?

Let's be honest, there are people who find every single idea put forth to be offensive and hateful no matter how innocuous you might think it is. No amount of PC scrubbing can make double plus good enough to pass everyone's muster.

You are basically justifying a bunch of people physically impeding a person because you don't happen to agree with him. I don't either as it happens, but at least I'm not so blinded by my hatred that I can't see what principles I'm selling out.
edit on 23-3-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then if all it takes is to shut down someone's ability to speak, why does anyone allow anyone to speak at all anymore anywhere in this country?

Let's be honest, there are people who find every single idea put forth to be offensive and hateful no matter how innocuous you might think it is. No amount of PC scrubbing can make double plus good enough to pass everyone's muster.

You are basically justifying a bunch of people physically impeding a person because you don't happen to agree with him. I don't either as it happens, but at least I'm not so blinded by my hatred that I can't see what principles I'm selling out.

I'm not justifying anything. I am specifying the intention of the first amendment.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join