End The First Amendment???

[gallantwarrior]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

You lack an understanding of the first amendment. The first amendment say "Congress shall pass no laws" which means you cannot be jailed or fined based on what you say. Nor can they suppress your speech. It is a major right of a free people

There is no right that says you cannot face consequences for what you say. You can still be ridiculed, condemned, ostricized or suffer consequences. If you tell your boss that his wife is fat and ugly...he can fire you. You have no first amendment protections

Someone who makes an offensive film can be criticized. Even by his own government. He is not protected by the first amendment

It is true that you might be required to face the consequences of your words. As in the case you cite, where one observes the boss's wife is fat and ugly. While you might be fired for that, you still have the right to express that opinion. What should be understood is that with such freedom comes the responsibility to use it in an appropriate manner or suffer the consequences. Fortunately, the boss has no legal recourse to lop off your head or fire bomb you house if your words are found offensive by him.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And that's the reason he got the attention???



You Lefties never seem able to connect the dots unless the NYTimes tells you to....

When you use 4 or 5 different names in public in a month and you are on probation from doing so, then the fire is started by oneself, blaming someone else is an old addicts ruse.

Oh, you mean like Obama blaming the film when the film was not to blame?

Yes. Lying like a rug is not unconstitutional. Now, let's hope enough voting Americans find lying offensive enough to make the consequence the removal of the Liar-in-Chief from his throne in November.

 

[there4eyeM]

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They are inseperable.

Many people verbalize a desire for freedom, yet flee responsibility.

Freedom of expression does and should allow us to say absolutely anything. Responsibility might lead us to prudence about what, where and when. This would require rational thought, though, and that seems very lacking in a great part of the general population (not just the US).

I may be willing to take the consequences for what I say, but if it draws lightning that may hit others, I should take that into account. A coward hides behind children to yell taunts at an enemy who would throw stones.

But above all, it is not the speaker of words that is responsible for the actions of the hearers. Individuals should know how to judge what comes to their attention. Again, this means a capacity to reason which, also again, is sadly lacking. No one wants to take responsibility for their choices, or even believe that it is choice they are making.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The First Amendment provides no protections against ridicule or condemnation

"Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech

Obama administration initially denied the attacks had anything to do with 9/11 but instead attributed them to free expression in America, in the form of a crudely-made, months-old “film” on YouTube.com (“Innocence of Muslims&#8221 which mocks Mohammad, the alleged “prophet” of Muslims. Prior to the 9/11 assaults the Obama administration failed to sufficiently arm Marines at its embassies, and since then it has failed to avenge the murders and vandalism, while also openly undermining the American commitment to free expression."
Obama's U.N. Talk Bolsters The U.N.'s Assault On Free Speech - Forbes

The First Amendment places restrictions only on government concerning prior restraint or restrictions of free expression; First Amendment case law provides clear guidance as to what government may restrict and what it may not. Pornography is protected speech, for example, obscenity, not.

But citizens expressing opinions concerning given speech, either elected official or private citizen, including the condemnation of expression one considers offensive or inappropriate, is in no way a ‘First Amendment,’ ‘Free Speech’ issue; it in no way ‘undermines’ free expression, nor does it violate the First Amendment.

Clearly this is a pathetic effort by the partisan right to contrive yet another controversy where none exists.

LOL!

I have an idea.

Since the leftists around here are too stupid to grasp the actual topic of this thread, let's talk about them instead.

You can always count on C_Clayton_Jones to rattle off some pedantic stream of drool. He's our resident, self-appointed, constitutional schoolmarm who robotically regurgitates truisms writ by others and understood by him no further than the extent of their strictest literal meanings. In other words, he's a walking monologue of academic jargon, a slogan spouter. His IQ is cliché raised to the infinite power.

Never forget that in spite of his oft-repeated admonitions about nuance and open-mindedness, lefty is the Bruce Jenner of the black-and-white thought games, a veritable virtuoso of the slammed-shut door.

The thrust of the thread as tendered by PoliticalChick, as well as the essence of the Forbes article, once again (LOL!), is this:

PoliticalChick's dispute with Posner goes to his sentiments as they correspond with those expressed by certain members of Obama's Administration, his associates, persons who are clearly not big fans of unbridled free speech, particularly when it comes to the expression of ideas with which they disagree. That coupled with Obama's womanish, overly sensitive concerns for the feelings of barbarians, PoliticalChick suggests that we have good reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of Obama's declarations of allegiance to First Amendment liberties. —M.D. Rawlings​

This nuanced, though readily apparent, extrapolation enters the vacuum of the leftist's cerebral black hole, bypasses my annihilation of Posner's conflated red herrings, rattles around a bit (crash, bang, hiccup) and emerges from the other side as a non sequitur, a rather pedestrian recitation of textbook blather regarding the First Amendment proper . . . about which no one with an IQ above that of a mild rash is confused.

"[C]ontrive yet another controversy"?!

The only contrivance here, C_Clayton_Jones, assuming you have the smarts for such machinations, is yours. The only controversy, besides the one none of you leftists are talking about, is over the height from which you were dropped on your head at birth.

Leftists calling conservatives idiots when the latter are flying lightyears above their pointed heads!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When we have a President that says this in his U.N. speech-
"The Future can not belong to those who slander Islam".
This is an attack on our 1st amendment.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

The president is not advocating a law be passed to arrest, prosecute, and punish those who engage in hate speech against Muslims – that would constitute an attack on the First Amendment.

Needless to say such a measure wound never pass Constitutional muster.

The president merely states a truism: that the future must not belong to those who hate.

LOL!

Everything you've written in this thread is needless to say, given that everything you've written is one red herring after another.

Clearly, the point that peach is making is that Obama's claptrap is an offense to First Amendment principles: claptrap that is premised on the "offense" taken from a video, that confounds the matters of cause and effect, confounds the concerns of human rights and justice; claptrap presented on a world stage of foreign policy; claptrap that reveals a deplorable lack of understanding of the demands of liberty; claptrap that exhibits a careless, even dangerous, disregard for the categorical connotations of terms and rhetoric.

Contempt for Islam and its prophet, what you call hate in your harebrained, politically correct sense, is not slander in any legal sense. . . except in the statist regimes of the Islamic world. How do you think they heard Obama's statement?

Doh!

The forum in which he uttered that sentence is the friggin' United Nations!

In the meantime, associates of Obama, including members of his administration, Marxists all, Robert McChesney, Julius Genachowski, Jen Howard, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd and so on, talk about a "religious attachment to the idea of a 'free-press' " and advocate that the government should take over all forms of media and dictate the content. Whores and thugs, the pushers of the Fairness Doctrine . . . . a policy that clearly violates the principles of the First Amendment, a policy that was repealed by the FCC, not overturned by the Court, in 1987. Indeed, the leftist Court of 1969 upheld the "right" of the FCC to enforce it.

Obama's friends and associates tell me all I need to know about what sleeps within his heart of hearts behind his wall of bullshit.

Oh, did I confuse you again by returning to the topic that PoliticalChick and I and others are actually talking about?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been.

Exhibit A: blind, partisan and stupid.

The answer to your question, C_Clayton_Jones, is yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.

You are illiterate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

The idiotic premise of this failed thread was that condemning hate speech related to Islam was some sort of ‘attack’ on the First Amendment, resulting in its coming to an end.

This has been demonstrated to be clearly wrong.

Absent government involvement, there are no First Amendment issues.

And that the hate and ignorance exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas is the consequence of the right’s failure to make their case, they have only themselves to blame, not ‘liberals,’ not the government, and not Muslims.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.

You are illiterate.

Uh-huh.

Because . . .

*crickets chirping*

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When this way-Left President, with inordinate sensitivities when it comes to Islam, suggests he will be more 'flexible' after his re-election.....

....the following is exactly what he means.

1. "The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment

2. The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech.



3. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them.

4. But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.





5. The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers.

6. ...conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.




7. For the left, the amendment today is like a dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.

8. We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal...

9. Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.

10. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad."
The vile anti-Muslim video and the First Amendment: Does the U.S. overvalue free speech? - Slate Magazine


Read between the lines......

....Slate magazine.....

....the Left has decided it's time to end free speech....
.... coincidentally, the White House wants to control the internet.


Are you Liberals ready to go along with that?

The idiotic premise of this failed thread was that condemning hate speech related to Islam was some sort of ‘attack’ on the First Amendment, resulting in its coming to an end.

This has been demonstrated to be clearly wrong.

Absent government involvement, there are no First Amendment issues.

And that the hate and ignorance exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas is the consequence of the right’s failure to make their case, they have only themselves to blame, not ‘liberals,’ not the government, and not Muslims.

He said, not with a bang, but a politically correct whimper, exposing the bottomless pit that is the depth of his moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. They are inseperable.

Many people verbalize a desire for freedom, yet flee responsibility.

Freedom of expression does and should allow us to say absolutely anything. Responsibility might lead us to prudence about what, where and when. This would require rational thought, though, and that seems very lacking in a great part of the general population (not just the US).

I may be willing to take the consequences for what I say, but if it draws lightning that may hit others, I should take that into account. A coward hides behind children to yell taunts at an enemy who would throw stones.

But above all, it is not the speaker of words that is responsible for the actions of the hearers. Individuals should know how to judge what comes to their attention. Again, this means a capacity to reason which, also again, is sadly lacking. No one wants to take responsibility for their choices, or even believe that it is choice they are making.

Per the message you attached to my profile, assuming you're talking about the post in the above for which I gave you rep: in truth, I'm not sure I completely agree with it; that is to say, it can be read as an apology for that which is utterly depraved, namely, lefty's mindless political correctness—potentially a two-edged sword subliminally raised against the right side of the argument unwaveringly confronting the wrong.

But perhaps you're aware of that.

To the point: I believe that Islam is a false religion from hell, its prophet, a depraved charlatan—an evil that must be confronted, not coddled or encourage. According to some that's slander and "hate". Right? But according to Christianity that's the hatred of evil . . . a necessary good, righteousness.

For I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes unto the Father except by Me. —Jesus Christ​

If I believe that then I must necessarily believe that Islam and its prophet are blasphemous falsehoods.

I submit to you the example of Christ's love, the methodology of his ministry, as opposed to the violence and oppression at the tip of the sword wielded by Mohammed.

We have rage and destruction, murder and mayhem committed by Muslims in the streets of the Islamic world and yet we have this propoganda from that second-rate intellect, that filthy little punk, C_Clayton_Jones, that would do Ahmadinejad proud:

And that the hate and ignorance [?!] exhibited by the right concerning Islam be shouted down in the free marketplace of political ideas [the free marketplace of political ideas shouted down by Muslims?!] is the consequence of the right's failure [?!] to make their case, they have only themselves to blame [?!], not ‘liberals,’ not the government, and not Muslims [?!].​

*crickets chirping*

Though he tries to deflect and distract one's attention with unqualified claims and the slings and arrows of marginalization, lefty invariably and unwittingly reveals what's in his heart of hearts. He can't help himself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. demonstrates the shallow end of libertarian thinking.

 

[daveman]

No, M. D., don't use a word of which you don't even understand the definition: marxism.

You are illiterate.

Uh-huh.

Because . . .

*crickets chirping*

Because he says so!

 

[peach174]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been

It has everything to do with Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Both want to get rid of our freedom of speech.
Jihad is doing it through violence and the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do it peacefully through laws.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to get Sharia law through all of the Western Countries.
Their first agenda is to get rid of our freedom of speech and then get Sharia law into the American laws.They are already doing that in some areas in our court system. They have done so in many European countries,
Shara law is incompatible with American Constitutional laws.

The guy who did the video was a Muslim and turned to Christianity and made a film to show that Islam is a false religion. He has the right to do that.
He was arrested on probation violations , it had nothing to do with his video.

We had better wake up as to what is really going on here,we have quite a few Muslims in this country who wants to get Sharia law in our Country.

The Muslims who are protesting in Michigan are the ones who are with the Muslim Brotherhood. They want Shara law throughout the whole world. That is their goal.
Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians blather, moderates and conservatives talk sense, righty extremists drool, lefties scrool.

Marxism has a particular definition and narrative. Don't expect sensible Americans to even pay attention when folks go daving.

 

[rightwinger]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been

It has everything to do with Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Both want to get rid of our freedom of speech.
Jihad is doing it through violence and the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do it peacefully through laws.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to get Sharia law through all of the Western Countries.
Their first agenda is to get rid of our freedom of speech and then get Sharia law into the American laws.They are already doing that in some areas in our court system. They have done so in many European countries,
Shara law is incompatible with American Constitutional laws.

The guy who did the video was a Muslim and turned to Christianity and made a film to show that Islam is a false religion. He has the right to do that.
He was arrested on probation violations , it had nothing to do with his video.

We had better wake up as to what is really going on here,we have quite a few Muslims in this country who wants to get Sharia law in our Country.

The Muslims who are protesting in Michigan are the ones who are with the Muslim Brotherhood. They want Shara law throughout the whole world. That is their goal.
Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

Dear God...
Jihad, destroying our freedom of speech, Sharia law in US

I thought this Glenn Beck, Hermann Cain bullshit went away

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To be able to speak against the violence of some that are Muslims is our 1st amendment right.
We are not slandering all Muslims.
The ones who are for Jihad are not all Muslims.
We have the right to speak up about those who support the slaughter of Innocent people.

People can discern the differences between Italians that were not mobsters, we speak against those crime Lords and can differentiate between the two, but we can's speak out against those who are for jihad.

To speak against Jihad is not condeming all Muslims and that is what they are trying to do.

Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been

It has everything to do with Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Both want to get rid of our freedom of speech.
Jihad is doing it through violence and the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do it peacefully through laws.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to get Sharia law through all of the Western Countries.
Their first agenda is to get rid of our freedom of speech and then get Sharia law into the American laws.They are already doing that in some areas in our court system. They have done so in many European countries,
Shara law is incompatible with American Constitutional laws.

The guy who did the video was a Muslim and turned to Christianity and made a film to show that Islam is a false religion. He has the right to do that.
He was arrested on probation violations , it had nothing to do with his video.

We had better wake up as to what is really going on here,we have quite a few Muslims in this country who wants to get Sharia law in our Country.

The Muslims who are protesting in Michigan are the ones who are with the Muslim Brotherhood. They want Shara law throughout the whole world. That is their goal.
Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

This is no more outrageous than conservatives advocating for the denial of equal protection rights for same-sex couples or privacy rights concerning procreation.

Why aren’t you denouncing those efforts equally offensive to the Constitution?

 

[Katzndogz]

Nobody said it was

The issue has nothing to do with Jihad or violence from radical Muslims. It has to do with someone who posted an offensive video against Mohammad. He was condemned as he should have been

It has everything to do with Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Both want to get rid of our freedom of speech.
Jihad is doing it through violence and the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do it peacefully through laws.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to get Sharia law through all of the Western Countries.
Their first agenda is to get rid of our freedom of speech and then get Sharia law into the American laws.They are already doing that in some areas in our court system. They have done so in many European countries,
Shara law is incompatible with American Constitutional laws.

The guy who did the video was a Muslim and turned to Christianity and made a film to show that Islam is a false religion. He has the right to do that.
He was arrested on probation violations , it had nothing to do with his video.

We had better wake up as to what is really going on here,we have quite a few Muslims in this country who wants to get Sharia law in our Country.

The Muslims who are protesting in Michigan are the ones who are with the Muslim Brotherhood. They want Shara law throughout the whole world. That is their goal.
Muslims in Dearborn rally against free speech, call for anti-blasphemy laws - National Policy & Issues | Examiner.com

This is no more outrageous than conservatives advocating for the denial of equal protection rights for same-sex couples or privacy rights concerning procreation.

Why aren’t you denouncing those efforts equally offensive to the Constitution?

Those 'rights' aren't in the Constitution. Freedom of Speech is part of the Bill of Rights.

Finding these dubious rights in the Constitution is like saying the right to free speech means everyone gets a free cell phone.

 

[peach174]

It has nothing to do with them.
It's actual reality.
BBC News - Growing use of Sharia by UK Muslims

Judge elevates Sharia law over US Constitution in Pennsylvania | Sharia Awareness Action Network

Judge Mark Martin’s statements and ruling in effect declared in an American court that Muslim immigrants may use Sharia law as a legal defense to attack American citizens who mock their faith and that ignorance of American law is an excuse for Muslim immigrants who violate state law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. demonstrates the shallow end of libertarian thinking.

Just for giggles, as I'm not a libertarian, because . . .

*crickets chirping*