It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bjax9er
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.
Originally posted by angrysniper
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?edit on 19-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
We need no restrictions on the first, but we do need to tear down monopolist systems which allow a few media conglomerates to control public opinion etc..
The answer is to preserve the constitution and create a more broad media base. The voice of America which all MSM claims to be should not be for sale or monopolised etc..
edit on 20-12-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by loOranks
reply to post by angrysniper
Not too long ago, it was common sense that the earth is flat.
Not too long ago, it was common sense that non-white were inferior sub-human species
Not too long ago, it was common sense not to let women vote
Who defines 'common sense' ?