Have our First Amendment protections been used as a vice to express hate?

John_C_87

@Openminded
Being right does not mean you are protected.......

Again, breaking a law that describes you as inalienably right, meaning you will not be wrong no matter what if you follow the law. Is not immunity from all wrong. Criminal law needs a counterweight of right resting on the scale of justice.

Breaking a law that describes you as an accused criminal, meaning you will not be wrong not matter until proven wrong in a court of law as long as you don't break this law. Are two different things see why people like writing criminal law over constitutional right?

What to remember is that when America was formed there had been no Federal laws, yet any and all men could be impeached at a Federal level yet few are ever publicly documented as having ever been.

jack

Openminded said:

Have our First Amendment protections been used as a vice to express hate?

Hello O:

It has..  However, if you're not free to express hate, you're not free.

excon

John_C_87

@jack
However, if you're not free to express hate, you're not free

If you're not at liberty to file and express grievance without cost, no one is to be without a price to pay. If we are not free to express hate we are simply just frustrated and in need of a cold shower.

The 1st Amendment right as law is being broken the word freedom is abridged with the word free claiming a much larger number of things can be both said and written that can be used to violate the meaning of peaceful assembly.

John_C_87

@Openminded

Have our First Amendment protections been used as a vice to express hate?

No, the use of criminal law and permits have been used as permission to break one type of law Constitutional over another type of law criminal.

The grievance is about how the induction of a women into the United States Consitutional Right is to take place. Is a women to be President or Presadera? Will all women be held as created equal before American Consitutional Right in writing or not?

As it stands all woman are now only described as fact to be an ambassador by law of nature in the United States Constitution.

Bogan

I am not absolutely certain, but I suspect that the person who submitted this topic does not like Donald Trump?

 The only moral absolute that I can think of at the moment which I fully support, is the absolute right of free political speech.   People in free democratic countries must have all the information on any topic which will allow them to make informed choices as to which side of politics is either correct, (or at least most correct,) on any social or political issue.    Decades ago, it was the Right who were the Establishment who tried to suppress free speech to stay in power, and the Left who were the champions of free speech.     Today, that situation has reversed.    Left whingers today have morphed into the very totalitarian wannabees that they so passionately fought against when they were young.

 “Hate speech” is an attempt by the Left to circumvent the right to free speech by attempting to categorize right wing opinions with the exemptions to free speech, which have long been recognised and approved of by the public in free democratic societies.     Those that advocate for “hate speech” exemptions from free speech should remember that the boot will be on the other foot when a right wing government and a right wing Establishment inevitably eventuates.       The pendulum always swings back, and today, Left wing policies are increasingly on the nose with most people in the free world.       Classing “hate speech” as exempt from free speech, is just the Left’s desperate attempt to remain in power by using the power of the state to shut down public criticisms of their failing policies.

 The most pernicious aspect of Left wing censorship today, is how they have built a power base which actually includes the richest of the rich, and some of those members are owners of the media.     And in a world where much news today comes from common International news wire services, the need to employ journalists is becoming less and less.     So, most journalists today, if they know what is good for them, instinctively know that slanting and spinning the news to suite the political leanings of their rich and powerful bosses may hopefully see them keeping their jobs.      The only problem with that, is that, the sort of people who really are interested in political discussion and appraisal, usually have triple digit IQ’s (jack/excon, Dee, Piloteer, and Barnadot are exemptions to that rule) and they are the sort of people who can recognise propaganda when they see it staring them in the face.     

 Today, left wing news media is the least trusted of news media by the public.     It is now hoped that Britain may at last see the end of the BBC commune which is now so biased that they may as well run the flags of HAMAS, and the hammer and sickle up their flagpoles.     CNN is dying and the hopefully MSNBC with it.    The riot in Dublin was caused in part because ordinary people are fed up of being lied to by the house trained Irish media.    This Left leaning, refugee advocating media, did not even feature on any Irish newspapers front page, the knifing attack on a teacher and three little girls by an “refugee”, who should never have been allowed into Ireland, and should never have been allowed to stay and bludge off the Irish.

Openminded

Argument Topic: The only moral absolute that I can think of at the moment which I fully support, is the absolute right of free political speech.

@Bogan

I believe in the First Amendment. I disagree that its the left who are squelching free speech. They are trying to squelch the lies, propaganda, sensationalism and fear mongering done by extreme right-wing news outlets. The banning of books currently happening is a right-wing ban. The banning of the word ¨gay¨ is a right wing ban. The ban on recognizing LGBTQ people as Americans is a right wing ban. The ban on abortion is is a right wing ban. Spare me the . And finally, if you believe Trump will not limit free speech, you best read up on his recent statements of doing away with the Constitution. He said he never swore an oath to the Constitution. Now this was not broadly covered, and I cannot find footage but there are numerous articles on this. So Trump not only will be limiting free speech (you can bet journalists that are not 100% loyal to him will be fired), but this also puts him in a position to run (like a dictator) forever. Is THIS what you want for America? A vote for Trump will be the last vote you´re able to make.

Openminded

Argument Topic: “Hate speech” is an attempt by the Left to circumvent the right to free speech by attempting to categorize right wing opinions with the exemptions to free speech, w

@Bogan

Unfortunately, hate speech which was normalized by Captain Chaos, is covered under free speech. When the previous leader of the free world was allowed to speak with no filter (and sure he´s a clown and funny and entertaining - but is he PRESIDENTIAL?) his supporters followed suit - following the leader. I believe if this hate speech is more normalized, our country just cannot sustain democracy.

Openminded

Argument Topic: The most pernicious aspect of Left wing censorship today, is how they have built a power base which actually includes the richest of the rich, and some of those members are owners of the media. And in a world where much news today comes from commo

@Bogan
Unfortunately, since the beginning when he was running, he stoked anger, and suspicion for all government entities: DOJ, FBI, DOD, all journalism, all liberal news outlets. Why? He likes Hitler and uses his methodology. Make them believe only me. Divide the country and it´ll be mine forever. You fell for it. Shame on you.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Today, left wing news media is the least trusted of news media by the public. It is now hoped that Britain may at last see the end of the BB

@Bogan
Honestly, you sound like a sound byte of the right-wing media. Do your own research. Don´t blindly stay in your bubble. Admit that he bamboozled you along with millions. Don´t vote for him or you can say goodbye to democracy and hello to a dictatorship on its way to a fascist country.

MayCaesar

Openminded said:

I believe Trump standardizes lying, hate and racist speech and abuses our First Amendment protections. Under his leadership, he essentially gave permission for citizens to exercise their hate and racism recklessly (follow the leader) causing a culture war between left and right. ¨A house divided against itself cannot stand.¨ Abe Lincoln This reckless expression of hate and racism is pushing the boundaries of our First Amendment. His flirtations with 1A protections will most likely not protect him in the end. God Help America if Trump is elected, because he will rule with an iron fist. And Ironically, he will ban all speech that is unfavorable toward him as dictators do. That will start the gradual stripping away of the sacred rights Americans have been granted - starting with The First Amendment. He has afterall, said it would be okay to suspend the Constitution.

This is a fair framing, assuming the president of the UK is the king who can tell his servants what they are permitted or not permitted to say. As far as I know though, this country was done with monarchy nearly 250 years ago, the government was delegated the representative, rather than the ruling, role, and the president specifically is only the head of the executive branch and not a fuhrer of sorts. Therefore Trump has no ability to "permit" or not "permit" his citizens to exercise their hate or racism recklessly. They are free to follow his ideas peacefully, and he is free to express his opinion however he sees fit - but "permitting" or not "permitting" speech is not within his constitutionally granted powers.

What evidence do you have that, if elected, he will ban all speech that is unfavorable towards him? First, if he was intent on doing so, why did he not do so during his first term? Second, what exact legal mechanism would he employ that would not be immediately deemed unconstitutional? And third, please name one dictator in the history of the world who actually banned "all speech that is unfavorable toward him". To the best of my knowledge, there was no precedent of that, but I may have missed something.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
This is a fair framing, assuming the president of the UK is the king who can tell his servants what they are permitted or not permitted to say. As far as I know though, this country was done with monarchy nearly 250 years ago, the government was delegated the representative, rather than the ruling, role, and the president specifically is only the head of the executive branch and not a fuhrer of sorts. Therefore Trump has no ability to "permit" or not "permit" his citizens to exercise their hate or racism recklessly. They are free to follow his ideas peacefully, and he is free to express his opinion however he sees fit - but "permitting" or not "permitting" speech is not within his constitutionally granted powers.

England at the time of the War of independence was run by the most part by Parliament and Parlimentry law which is criminal law only as England, U.K.  still does not have a United State Consitutional Right system of law..

What is the UK Constitution? | The Constitution Unit - UCL – University College London

Openminded

Argument Topic: It has.. However, if you're not free to express hate, you're not free.

@jack

It disturbs me that our sacred freedom to speak our minds - being tested and pushed to its boundaries - could some day be stripped from us due to abuse. And, are we truly ¨free¨ if we possess hate?

Openminded

Argument Topic: f you're not at liberty to file and express grievance without cost, no one is to be without a price to pay. If we are not free to express hate we are simply just frustrated and in need of a cold shower. The 1st Amendment right as law is being broken the word freedom is abridged with the word free claiming a much larger number of things can be both said and written that can be used to violate the meaning of peaceful assembly.

@John_C_87
Yes, I feel the boundaries of our first amendment rights are being increasingly tested. Love ¨If we are not free to express hate we are simply just frustrated and in need of a cold shower.¨ 

jack

Openminded said:

@jack

It disturbs me that our sacred freedom to speak our minds - being tested and pushed to its boundaries - could some day be stripped from us due to abuse. And, are we truly ¨free¨ if we possess hate?

Hello again, O:

I HATE Trump.  I'm FREE to say it, and I LIKE it that way.

excon

Openminded

Argument Topic: The only moral absolute that I can think of at the moment which I fully support, is the absolute right of free political speech. People in free democratic countries must have all the information on any topic which will allow them to make informed choices as to which side of politics is either correct, (or at least most correct,) on any social or political issue.

@Bogan
I agree that all citizens should be able to express political speech freely. People in democratic countries should be well informed.The position of POTUS is one of the most influential positions in the world. As a litmus test and at the very least, a leader of the free world should possess strength of character. A strong leader supports the Constitution. A strong leader protects its citizens. A strong leader does not tell outright lies, bully, partake in immature name calling, spread propaganda, incite violence or criminal acts against our congress - under the guise of free speech. The First Amendment is an American´s sacred right. Its abuse by the leader of the free world threatens to strip this sacred right from its citizens. When a President´s character starts crumbling by abusing freedom of speech (follow the leader), the citizens of the country crumble and then eventually the citizens of the world. Your outrage is directed toward (¨the radical left¨ trump) Americans. It should be directed toward the previous leader.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I HATE Trump. I'm FREE to say it, and I LIKE it that way.

@jack
I share the same sentiment.
Ironically, the man who abuses this sacred right the most, will be the one (if reelected) to strip it from us.

jack

Openminded said:

@Bogan

I agree that all citizens should be able to express political speech

Hello again, O:

Please note Bogan's use of the word "political" speech..  That's because he's a serial ANTI free speech advocate when it comes to ANY speech other than "political".  He, in fact, BELIEVES if a kid SEES a shoot 'em up movie, the kid will be REQUIRED to go out and shoot somebody..  Therefore, if Bogan COULD, he'd DESTROY all the books and movies that depicted gunfire, and PITCH movies like "Leave it to BEAVER"..

That AIN'T a country I wanna live in..

excon

Bogan

@Openminded

Hi Closeminded, I thought you weren’t talking to me?   I suppose I am a hard act to follow? 

 

Closeminded quote     I believe in the First Amendment. I disagree that its the left who are squelching free speech.     

 Then you must be living in cave without TV or internet service?     The Left was once the champions of free speech against the political censorship of the Establishment Right.     But the old right wing public service got replaced by university trained flower children  in every western country, who inhabited a leftist public service bubble, and who never grew out of The Age of Aquarius.       Once the Left became the public service Establishment, the boot was on the other foot, and they became just as obsessed with power and censorship as their Right wing opponents before them.       Central to their thinking was that all people were equal, and anyone who suggested otherwise was not only wrong, but evil.     To that end, we see in every western country legislation to try and ban anyone talking about the negative effects of multiculturalism, or why certain ethnicities are always dysfunctional in every western country they inhabit. 

 

Closeminded quote       They are trying to squelch the lies, propaganda, sensationalism and fear mongering done by extreme right-wing news outlets.  

 The only problem with that analysis is that notoriously left wing news organisations (who are not publicly funded) are going broke because nobody except you and Jack trusts them.    While “right wing” news organisations are now the most successful and trusted news organisations around.      Fox is now number 1, while CNN, once the most trusted news service 40 years ago, is 23.     And that after the owner tried to get it’s credibility back by  sacking some of the over the top anti Trump crazies like Brian Steltor, Chris Cuomo, and Jack Lemon.     That did not work because leftism is just too entrenched in the network.    Now he is trying to sell the failing train wreck but nobody, not even Elon, wants to buy it.

 

Closeminded quote    The banning of books currently happening is a right-wing ban.

 Wrong again.    Parents and grandparents who are Republicans and Democrats are incensed that loony left teachers are exposing their kids to pornographic books like “Gender Queer” which display pornographic images to 10 year olds that would be banned as obscene on any TV show.     This is especially so among migrant communities who may be traditional Democrat voters, but who also have traditional views about sexuality that transcends their traditional voting loyalties.     Trump is going to win because traditional Democrat voters are being turned off en mass by the crazy leftist policies that are opposed by many Democrat voters themselves.

 

Closeminded quote     The ban on recognizing LGBTQ people as Americans is a right wing ban.    

 Nobody is claiming that people with gender dysphoria are not Americans.      Get real. 

 

Closeminded quote     The ban on abortion is is a right wing ban.

 Wrong.   People on the right tend to be religious and such people usually oppose abortion.    But there are plenty of liberal right wing people, especially half the population called “women”, who support abortion, so any attempt to ban abortion is not going anywhere.    They even have abortion now in Italy, which just goes to show entrenched this value has become in the western world. 

 

Closeminded quote  And finally, if you believe Trump will not limit free speech, you best read up on his recent statements of doing away with the Constitution. He said he never swore an oath to the Constitution. Now this was not broadly covered, and I cannot find footage but there are numerous articles on this.

 There may be “numerous articles” on this in Pravda, the Guardian, The New York Times, The Global Times, but although I am intensely interested in politics, this is the first time I have ever heard of it.    I give it as much credence as the “Russia Collusion” hogwash, and I am not surprised that you can not authenticate in in any way.

 

Closeminded quote   So Trump not only will be limiting free speech (you can bet journalists that are not 100% loyal to him will be fired), but this also puts him in a position to run (like a dictator) forever. Is THIS what you want for America? A vote for Trump will be the last vote you´re able to make.

 Please submit any quote from Donald Trump where he threatens to limit free speech.     As for “dictatorship”, it is not the Republicans who have weaponised the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Tax office to such an extent that Biden’s family can get away with almost anything, while their main political opponent  is now facing more charges than Al Capone.        It is not Republicans being caught with stolen gold bars in their apartments.    It wasn’t Trump who was fool enough to brag in front of a TV camera how he had bribed the Ukrainians.    It was not the Republicans who used their contacts in the intelligence services to falsely claim that Hunter’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”, a false assertion which influenced the outcome of a US Presidential election.

John_C_87

@Openminded
Argument Topic: I HATE Trump. I'm FREE to say it, and I LIKE it that way.

As my explanation can be too long. You are at liberty to say you hate former Executive officer #45. It is we the people who are free to listen to you. You are not free to say the word hate it is a liberty granted to us all to file, write, and verbalize grievance.

John_C_87

@Bogan
free speech

Where do you get free speech? Do you know what abridge means. (formal: to reduce in scope : Dimminish ) 
Freedom of speech and press is not your freedom......Ever, we are assigned a liberty to keep words used without costs. Freedom includes many things besides money and the entirety of costs but are specific to peaceful assembly in particular as right. The preamble describes the specific cost as a common defense towards the general welfare of tranquility overall. The only difference in the 1st amendment’s addition to a one condition of preamble is the addition of a mood of the assembly of people being made or being asked to be formed. 

Openminded

Argument Topic: Hi Closeminded, I thought you weren’t talking to me? I suppose I am a hard act to follow?

@Bogan
I got off twitter because the conversation was nasty and just diarrhea of the mouth comments. Iḿ not going to entertain you. 

Bogan

@Openminded

Of course.    You are another left wing loony that can not debate, and who can not handle the truth.     Just in case you have not noticed, people everywhere are waking up to the empty promises of left wing socialism and right wing parties are in the ascendent, everywhere. 

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!     You have nothing to lose except a bloated, neo-Marxist public service who cowtows to the rich oligarchs.       

Openminded

Argument Topic: Of course. You are another left wing loony that can not debate, and who can not handle the truth. Just in case you have not noticed, people everywhere are waking up to the empty promises of left wing socialism and right wing parties are in the ascendent, everywhere.

@Bogan
No. I feel if I continue ¨debating¨ with you, I am stooping down to your level. An okay level for you, but not me.

Bogan

If you are frightened of debating with your social inferiors, then which side is inferior?  

John_C_87

Free speech as a norm of international law

Full article: Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law (tandfonline.com)

Free speech is not a United States of law for Right. Free is without cost and speech without cost of any kind is most definitely not a truth when we speak of international law or American law. The only difference between the two is American law includes United States Constitutional Right which gives extra detail as how to be right as a law. Instead of the idea of the Democracy being in charge of overseeing right only between two wrongs and having no right placed in writing for the people’s protection from tyranny private or public.

Again, to point out a small by critical detail as fact women are not excluded by American Declaration of Independence from international law. They have not yet held themselves as created equal to each other by their creator. Whatever or whoever that creator might be, mother, father, boyfriend, husband, lawyer, doctor, grievance, and or love plus passion.

John_C_87

No. I feel if I continue ¨debating¨ with you, I am stooping down to your level. An okay level for you, but not me.
It would be an hornor if I was granted the right to relieve you of command in debating Bogan?

John_C_87

@Bogan

If you are frightened of debating with your social inferiors, then which side is inferior?  

It is understood you are simply insulting her honor not her social status and she seeks liberty. I still have the question of where did you get the idea of Free speech it is not a American United States Constitutional Right? In America freedom of speech is its own liberty not yours. You do not listen, and you do abridge the meanings of words, international law has no international United States Constitutional Right as a counter in its writings of only criminal law.