originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Boadicea
No offense but I am so tired of hearing that. Everybody on the Internet knows it.
It’s the exact same scenario as mispronouncing a word. Everybody within earshot knows what you meant. But somebody’s always has to act smart
and correct you.
Because it is a very significant difference, with very different foundational principles, which necessarily
dictates the appropriate response
to the problem, which you knowingly and deliberately misrepresented (by your own admission) and then dismiss quite flippantly... while purportedly
objecting to yellow journalism.
Do you really not see the problem there???
you seem to want the long arm of government to step in and "protect" us
That offended me because obviously you haven’t even looked at my position.
Yes, I did. And you began and ended with easily disproven falsehoods, completely ignored the government's role in what and how news media do their
jobs, and offered no practical solutions for the people... the individual. You throw the people under the bus as basically too stupid to be able to
know better, while ignoring the fact that the government makes the truth criminal and propaganda legal, leaving media with only official government
lies and unofficial anonymous sources. In theory, if not in practice, the reporters do not know which leaks are true and which are half-truths and
which are mis-truths and which are total un-truths, and if they didn't report any or all such leaks, then they'd be criticized for either picking and
choosing which leaks to report, or that they were hiding the truth from the public.
Yes, media sucks. But it starts with government. And We The People are the solution... as long as we deny ignorance.
Your post sounds like you just jumped on the bandwagon.
Really? The one who knowingly and deliberately dismissed the rights of the individual (Constitutional Republic) with mob rule (Democracy) is accusing
of jumping on a bandwagon??? Oh dear lordy... but okay. I'm happy to jump on any bandwagon that promotes and educates and therefore
the people. I'm good with that. Apparently you aren't. Good to know.
The supreme court ( The long arm of Government )already protects us from speech that incites violence .
There is so much wrong with that statement. Where oh where do I begin to unpack it? Let's clarify first that we are talking about one and only
Supreme Court of the United States, currently led by a Chief Justice who we know was being spied upon by Team Obama, with much reasonable speculation
that he's being blackmailed, right? [i]That Supreme Court, right? Because it cannot be corrupted, right???
And, of course, the Supreme Court which has in fact and in deed reversed itself on more than one occasion, right?
But more important, the Supreme Court protects us from nothing and no one. The Supreme Court interprets the law, it does not write the laws, and it
does not enforce the law. Further, the Supreme Court can only punish offenders after the fact, it does not prevent or protect us from violations of
The Supreme Court has an important function, no doubt, but can also be compromised and corrupted. That doesn't help people use their own good common
sense and critical thinking skills to protect ourselves from yellow journalism -- or any other threat.
I guess you’re OK with solicitation for murder ? Or how about a known arsonist telling you he’s going to burn down your house ? Would you
be OK with a person screaming obscenities in your child’s face ? Do you applaud the KKK inciting towns to lynch people in the 1950s.
Oh please. Now you're just being silly. No one is arrested for using words to solicit a murder... they are arrested for soliciting a murder which is
a violation of every person's natural and inalienable right to life. No one is arrested for saying he's going to do anything... they are arrested for
attempting or successfully committing that crime, including arson. No one is arrested for screaming anything in anyone's face, but for harassment or
disturbing the peace or otherwise violating the right's of people to peaceably assemble, associate and otherwise conduct their business. I condemn
the KKK for inciting riots and lynchings, also violating the individual's natural and inalienable rights, not because they said some words.
I’m not in anyway attacking the first amendment.
You certainly aren't defending or protecting it either.
True threats, inciting violence and fighting words or anything that leads to violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
Of course not... because inciting violence and provoking violence is a crime in and of itself. Not because words were used. Much like our right to
own property isn't violated if we are prosecuted for using our property to commit a violent crime. It's not the tool that is illegal it is the act.
Is it your position that it should be overruled .
No, it is not. I understand the foundational Constitutional and legal principles involved, and have no problem putting it in its proper
I hope I explained it well enough this time.
You made yourself quite clear.
I can’t believe I’m on the defensive about something everyone here has lived with all their life .
Is that a bandwagon I hear???
edit on 21-10-2019 by Boadicea because: formatting