No Offense: The New Threats to Free Speech

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by TheElysianFields, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. TheElysianFields

    TheElysianFields New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once you start making some speech illegal, it really becomes a slippery slope.

    "If we're already doing this, why not do that too?" mentality
     
  3. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. The right NOT to be offended, is not.
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has there ever been a point in history when some forms of speech weren't illegal or otherwise prohibited? From things like blasphemy laws and restrictions of political speech through to the likes of libel, perjury, threats of violence or the classic shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

    If this was really a slippery slope, we'd be at the bottom already (and not able to post here at all).
     
  5. CircleBird

    CircleBird Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The constitution is a piece of paper.
     
  6. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So is every book and document created in the last 1000 years. What's your point?
     
  7. CircleBird

    CircleBird Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that something is protected by the Constitution doesn't matter.
     
  8. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see, so the Supreme Court just pulls its decisions out if its ass and all their rulings are bogus. Gotcha.
     
  9. CircleBird

    CircleBird Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I was responding to your comment, "The right to free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. The right NOT to be offended, is not.".

    The Constitution is just paper. If we want to add the right NOT to be offended to it, we can. If we want to alter the right to free speech as protected by the Constitution, we can.

    "Because it's in the Constitution" , isn't an argument.
     
  10. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see where you are coming from now. Yes, if the citizens of the US wanted to, they could petition for congress to change the First Amendment. Any law or document can be changed. It takes a lot though to create a new amendment and most people do not like the Constitution messed with. I for one would be grabbing the nearest soapbox and picket sign in defense of the First Amendment.
     
  11. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The fact remains that your right to free speech is a protection from the government. Not a protection to say what you want in any circumstance. If you say something that offends many people, like when Bill Maher called the terrorists brave or the Dixie Chicks spoke ill of President Bush there was a right and in a free society and obligation to say to those that gave them the microphone to say those things that they didn't like it. In Maher's case it meant very little as you can see (the right loves him now) and in the Chicks case people got over it. In both of those cases if at any time the government tried to step in then their right to free speech would be in jeopardy, until then, not at all.
     
  12. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Love your sentiment, but it's not true. It is not done with a petition. It is done by an Article V convention. Petitions are not legal process to congress. Congress is NOT constitutional, meaning it will only be done by 3/4 of the states with conventions in each as established by Article V. Nor is the Supreme Court constitutional.

    They are both working to destroy the constitution one little piece at a time, and I can prove it.

    1. Congress refuses to count applications for Article V by states despite the constitution stating that when 2/3 of the states apply, the congress "shall" call a convention to propose amendments. I have a link to prove this if anyone cares.

    2. The Supreme Court is the only entity that can write court rules. At some time perhaps in the 1990's a revision of the 9th circuit court rules was done that divided the section dealing with the assignment of magistrates and judges into a small section of 15 pages or so separate from the main body of rules.

    One particular rule dealt with pro se civil rights plaintiffs. It was created in the 1880s civil war reconstruction era because Negros could not get a fair trial and judge.

    The rule was that a pro se civil rights case that was filed and dismissed, if refiled was reassigned to the same magistrate and judge to prevent a duplication of effort by the judges, HOWEVER, if it was refiled with NEW co plaintiffs, it was automatically assigned to a new magistrate and judge.

    This made sense because the new co plaintiffs joining indicated there was a real problem and it was getting bigger because the first judge had not provided justice.

    That entire 15 page section was removed from the court rules with NO NOTE OF REVISION in 2005.

    This violates two very important regulations of the Administrative Offices of the US district courts.

    A. All revisions are noted in the rules with dates of revision so the old rule can be found.

    B. All changes to the rules MUST have public notice with the taking of comment from the comment AND utilization of the comment before the change can be made.

    Judicial councils can only abrogate rules. Which is what happened, the rule was removed.

    I can get no help from anyone to find a copy of the removed rules. The ACLU is a joke, on us. Along with every other supposed civil rights organization I've been able to find.

    Pro se plaintiffs are very important because they WILL file suits no attorney will take. They are real issues, important to a of us, and if justice is denied, we all suffer.

    The suit I and co plaintiffs filed would have protected; 2nd amendment rights, the right to proper mental health care, prevented and reduced the size of the prison system, reduced medical costs across all of the states drastically in 20 years.

    Does anyone give a (*)(*)(*)(*)? No,
     
  13. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    All true. However there is supposed to be more protection from government enabled by free speech than what you indicate.

    Free speech is supposed to be able to empower the unity needed to "alter or abolish". Think about it. How else is it going to happen?

    "Alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence is codified in Article V of the 1787 constitution. So the people only have a right to "alter or abolish" through their states.

    Okay, what if congress refuses to call an Article V convention, exactly like we have right now?

    Article V allows for 3/4 of the states having conventions in those states, to propose and ratify amendments to the constitution. BUT, in either case, all amendments must be parallel to the intents and purposes of the constitution.

    Think about it. Only the people are going to see to that. The states as they are will not be looking out for the people to that extent and the people have no way to unify to an extent adequate even in their states to assure constitutional intent. The result, everyone is afraid of an Article V convention.

    The purpose of free speech is abridged.
     
  14. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Offensive speech in the 21st century will be heavily scrutinized. America is a PC nation.
     

Share This Page