We need common sense restrictions on the 1st amendment.

I propose sensible, common sense restrictions on the First Amendment!

The modern media has proven time and time again it can not be trusted with the "assault" resource they have today. Satellite trucks, video phones and the internet. Not to mention social media and email. Really, the founders of our great country NEVER could have imagined the speed at which information now travels. They were living in a time of quills, ink wells and Gutenberg presses.

How many parents need to be given false hope or experience false grieving because news agencies try to out gun the others? This recklessness needs to be curtailed!

I think that responsible reporters and media outlets would agree, something needs to be done before more reputations are ruined. Before more families experience unfounded grief. I propose that during a major story, reporting be limited to 5 mins every 3 hrs.

This only makes sense. It gives the outlets time to check facts. It limits the exposure of the evil doer and will reduce copycat events. It will reduce the PTSD felt by the innocent bystanders across the nation who seem to be glued to the news stations.

I think we can all agree, the 1st amendment has over stepped the intentions of our founders.

Satellite technology developed by our military to communicate to military forces across the world is now used - without restriction - by private entities to communicate any message they desire. What will it take to get people to wake up!

Only a zealous idiot would believe the Founding Fathers ever intended for the First Amendment to protect the kind of misinformation and libel this technology makes possible.

Now I'm not saying we should do away with the 1st amendment entirely, but we need reasonable.. common sense restrictions. If you want to own books, you can. You just need to be part of a reading club, and keep them stored at an approved library facility.

We need a 7-day waiting period on news reports. Give people time to cool off (or at least get the facts right) before publishing a story.

Reporting on violent crimes should be limited to between the hours of 6 pm and 10 pm and warnings should proceed the story to ensure there is an adult in the room. Access to their websites should require a background check and a 10 day waiting period!

I say that we need to control all forms of media other than the manual printing press and hand written documents. It just makes sense since that's all that was available when they wrote the first amendment, right?

We don't need common sense restrictions. What we need is common sense.

P.s. Even though you aren't serious.. I hope... What's up with this forum and people posting about restrictions on everything and putting down the constitution. It's old but it's founded on principles that will last forever.

p.p.s. This is somewhat unrelated but I think it would be a good idea to put labels on any type of violent media warning against letting mentally unstable people view it. Let them watch it if they want, as long as they are warned.

I like what you have done here.

S+F

You almost got me. It's a good thing I read your entire post before angrily clicking on reply.

Well maybe, I would say at the least a disclaimer, probably better yet a warning label:

ATTN: WARNING
Viewers are HIGHLY advised to view with *extreme* caution and should at no time expect anything remotely accurate or unbiased to be presented. We repect the full rights and will and financial backing of our generous contributers and clients and our first duty is to attempt to bias your opinion with our latest wizardry, so as to mold you to THEIR liking and secondly also important to maintain a handsome profit by convincing you that you need their worthless junk. Thank you for your support. Now on to the infomercials: (Keep your credit cards handy, operators standing by)

You should add to that a ban of any typists over 5 wpm because who, other than our military and our government, needs to type that fast? What about copy & pasting? it types more than one word with a single click!

I was trying to get this point across yesterday, but it just flew right over the commies heads.

I mean the democrats.

If we can restrict the second amendment, then we can restrict all NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

Pass the Valium.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
I think a large number of posters to this board are smoking dope.

First the Second Amendment came under attack. Now we have the moronic suggestion that First Amendment rights be curtailed.

Who the hell are you people? Are you Americans? If you are, is your IQ above 50?

There is some major league trolling going on here because no one could possible be THAT STUPID.

Dude read the op carefully.

The op is pointing out what will happen to all of the bill of rights if we allow the second amendment to be curtailed.
In a sarcastic kind of way.

reply to post by bjax9er

Yeah, I got it. I edited.

I get a little hot when it comes to the Constitution.

While your satirical comments concerning the first amendment are quite humorous, I do believe common sense needs to be applied across all of the amendments. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by bjax9er

 

Yeah, I got it. I edited.

I get a little hot when it comes to the Constitution.

I hear ya.

reply to post by angrysniper


Satire at it's finest! Well done.

reply to post by angrysniper

Now you're just shooting your mouth off.



Well done.

Originally posted by angrysniper

I think we can all agree, the 1st amendment has over stepped the intentions of our founders.

Really, - "we can all agree"?!
We need pics, docs and links or it never happens (it hasn't happened yet).
I call BS - "we can all agree" - prove it!

ganjoa

Don't take this the wrong way...

I love you.

I agree. Give Rush Limbaugh a soapbox in the county square, rather than a thousand 50,000 watt radio stations and unlimited internet bandwidth to spread his misinformation... the Founding Fathers never envisioned propaganda backed up by the full force of capitalism and advertising.

Well, they did say freedom of the press, not freedom of the internet, or telephone, or satellite, or television, or radio.

And it was a manual press at that. Not an automatic one. Not so much as a mimeograph! The Constitution allowed for organized formally trained orators and spokes people to own movable type manually operated printing presses, not these fancy, electronic devices which we now have. To try to interpret that right further is nonsense, no more than crazy talk.

reply to post by angrysniper


I disagree completely, though I understand your points. The one thing I do feel they should be required to do is to dedicate a minimum of double the amount of time to retract mistakes in identification. So if there were 20 minutes of discussion about the shooter in CT being the brother of the shooter, they should be required to dedicate at least 40 minutes to telling the world they reported incorrectly, and that guy is innocent.

Or when a news article is run about an alleged child molestor, or rapist, and it turns out not to be true..article inches and headline size doubled to clear the person whose life has been ruined by the carelessness.

But limiting the reporting of stories. No way. People can choose to watch something else, or not watch at all.

I absolutely agree.

They outlawed freedom of speech in China years ago.

And we can all see how well it's working over there.

They never have news reports that are full of misinformation.

And all the people are allowed to work their factory jobs in peace without worrying about what their government is up to.