YouTube Link

There you have it: the Attorney General admits he wants to restrict the First Amendment as it applies to internet communications. This makes me sick. It's time to throw the lot of 'em out. Anyone who thinks they have the right to skirt, subvert, distort, or outright ignore our Constitutional rights has no business being in a position of political power.


TA

So the Constitution is somehow "provisional" meaning that it isn't Universal and does not apply to any person, or any time, or any place?

The Law is meant for ALL. For laws to be effectual they are meant to be all-inclusive, not something that is just a convenience when it works in your favor and irrelevant when they don't.

When you start saying that Constitutional Rights apply only some of the time, only in certain conditions, you aren't just treading upon a slippery slope, you are already at the bottom!

So, what's next? First Amendment no longer applies to Public Protest? First Amendment no longer applies to the Media? First Amendment no longer applies to Women or African-Americans? First Amendment no longer applies when Mercury is in retrograde?

Ahem! Mr. Eric H. Holder Jr., the distinguished gentleman from the district of New York, I don't know what kind of law they were teaching at Columbia when you attended, but Constitutional Law has been the same for a couple centuries now. Maybe it's long overdue that you spend some time taking a few refresher courses. (And I hear that Columbia Law School provides courses online so you can study in your spare time from home while continuing to work as Attorney General of the United States!)

[edit on 30-6-2009 by fraterormus]

reply to post by fraterormus

---

Well stated, fraterormus. The laws set forth by the Constitution should be universally applicable (although, technically they aren't: Constituion Free Zones, ATS thread ). I guess Holder believes, as most 'progressives' do, that the Constitution is just some old, dusty document to be paid no mind.


TA

In a huff I did a bit of digging into this and was rather relieved to find that this was a NPR interview from almost 10 years ago, immediately following the shooting at Columbine.

That doesn't make what he said any more right as "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."

However, I'm wiling to give a man the benefit of the doubt under the assumption that perhaps he may have learned a thing or two in the past 10 years and may have changed his opinion.

It would be interesting to hear him explain his way out of his previous comments, and clarify where he stands now on the issue though.

I dont need to say anything beyond this one sentence.

This is INFURIATING.

S&F. This is just one in a list of attacks on our rights.

When will the American public wake up? Of course, the bleeding hearts will label any concern as "hyperbole".

That's it. Stop the bus.
This is where I want to get off.

I'm going to set my alarm for freedom and democracy.

Wake me when it gets here.

Of course he would, this is what little dictators do.


The internet is the only bastion of free speech remaining for people to freely communicate ideas back and forth. There is no speech editor, no filter button that they can use to sway opinion in favor of their lies and corrupt policies.

It is the last remaining place where a man can find a shred of honest truth, and once it is tainted and spoiled by the thought police then it will be as useless and as treacherous as the nightly news and the rags they pass off as newspapers.

Shut off communication and you have an entire populous left in the dark and reliant on media propaganda for any news or updates. Stifle free speech, that way the PTB can tell you what you can and cant believe.

This, IMO, would be the last straw.

Once apon a time there was this guy, his name was Thomas Jefferson who once gave a country called the United States a form of government. When he was finished some old lady asked, "So sir what kinda of government did you give us. Jefferson kindly replied, "Not the one this guy said above it... I'll be a REPUBLIC if you can KEEP it."

Further proof.

Unto the REPUBLIC for which it stands.

Please we do not live under democratic government we are and always have been a REPUBLIC.

Oh ya on topic...

WE have been talking about this on ATS since 04 that I can remember. Interesting thing is that they called us a wackjob..
There was another thing Rothschild i believe it was stated that the biggest national threat to the united states was the internet and they needed to regulate it as fast as possible because the DoD gets attacked like 3 million times a day by hackers.

Sorry, republic, democracy. . . it's been so long since we've had one I couldn't remember.

reply to post by TheAssociate

---

How do I write this SOB? He NEEDS to hear the thoughts of the many!!!
Our rights act as a dam against the pervasive flood of socialistic despots.
Once a trickle crosses the dam,it becomes in danger of inundation. So goes our rights.Once they take free speech from the internet,how long will it be before the restraints are tested on public speech?
Who do these loosers believe themselves to be?

reply to post by daddyroo45

---

Here ya go, daddyroo45: www.usdoj.gov...

Glad to see we're all on the same page about this one. We have a lot of disagreement here on ATS, but i believe we can all agree that our right to say whatever we damn well please on the internet shall not be infringed upon. Thank you all for the replies, stars and flags.


TA