The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[PaintMyHouse]

CP is an element of Free Speech, so, should it be outlawed, which it is, or not as the OP states by implication? Pick one.

There is a reason that you are not a Supreme Court Justice - even Sotomayor has a better grasp of the concepts of law than you do.

Porn, even Child Porn, isn't Free Speech? How so?

 

[Moonglow]

Tell you what Kosh, the US outlaws this. Is it right or wrong based on the OP's "no law" theory? Should Dog Porn be legal or not?

Obstruction of traffic is, which also infringes on free speech...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.

Polichic is trying to say that dems have tried to curtail free speech in the political arena...

"Polichic is trying to say..."

Funny.....the less articulate pretend they can say what I mean better than I can.


Seems awfully close to lying.....but NYLiar has that covered.
You: quote what I say when you want to say what I say.

 

[Kosh]

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.

Yes and no matter how "stupid" a far left drone my think the OP is, the far drone that used child porn as their example should win the award for "stupidity"..

However leave it to the far left drones to overlook their own..

Just a hint to the far left: There is no such thing as freedom of speech!

Is child pornography a 1st amendment issue or not?

It is not. It is the exploitation of children.

It was, once, but let's say some guy owns a picture of CP taken 40 years ago, how is that exploitation? Maybe the picture is a from a Sears catalog but he uses it as porn. Legal or not?

 

[Moonglow]

No 'wiggle room'?

Are laws against child pornography unconstitutional? They can abridge freedom of speech, expression, the press.

I'm sure soon the liberals will make child pornography legal. Your party already supports incest.

If liberals wanted to make child porn legal, they'd be supporting the OP's interpretation of the 1st Amendment -

no wiggle room, i.e., no exceptions...

Just give it time. Last year we stated gay marriage could lead to incest marriage. We were told we were crazy, well it's gonna happen in New York.

It's been going on since Adam and Eve, where the hell have you been?

Gay marriage has been going on since Adam and eve? Wow what happened last year?

It came back into style...They thought if there were no other women at the time of Adam it was a good idea...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP says no 'wiggle room' in the 1st amendment, which means child porn HAS to be protected under freedom of speech or of the press.

I say she's wrong. What do you say?

No, it doesn't mean that.

Prosecuting Obscenity - An Overview Of Past Pornography Rulings By The U.s. Supreme Court American Porn FRONTLINE PBS

How can it not mean that?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

How do you get from 'no law' to being able to make some laws without the 'wiggle room' that PC insists must not exist?

 

[Moonglow]

We as a society as a whole has a job to protect our children, no matter how you twist and turn a law.

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

I am for a law that protects children.

I am too but the OP is strongly implying that such a law, if it does not comply - to the letter - with the wording of the 1st Amendment,

is unconstitutional. Is she right or wrong?

With child pornography, she is wrong.

Of course she's wrong, more broadly speaking, to think that the 1st Amendment, or any other amendment, is somehow closed to interpretation.

Where is the proof that the right does not want Islam outlawed in this nation?

 

[hadit]

This is gilding the lily, but let me point out what a stupid post yours is....

Coulter has penned some dozen best sellers that make the Left apoplectic.....speech is her 'sword' and that's what you Leftists hate.

See how stupid this sounds:"Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment."

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

The popular vote means as much as the amount of time an American football team controls the ball. It's a fun statistic, but meaningless when compared to the number of points scored.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

Reading your comments should make every conservative shudder in embarrassment. Are you trying to take the crown of Idiot-Gram Leader from CrusaderFrank?

 

[hadit]

You're desperately avoiding the OP's claim. Is she right or wrong? She's claiming that what you call our job to protect children is unconstitutional if it in any way whatsoever violates the literal text of the 1st Amendment.

Why are you arguing with me instead of her?

I am for a law that protects children.

I am too but the OP is strongly implying that such a law, if it does not comply - to the letter - with the wording of the 1st Amendment,

is unconstitutional. Is she right or wrong?

With child pornography, she is wrong.

Of course she's wrong, more broadly speaking, to think that the 1st Amendment, or any other amendment, is somehow closed to interpretation.

Where is the proof that the right does not want Islam outlawed in this nation?

Prove a negative? Isn't that rather pointless? It's up to those making the charge to prove their case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.

Polichic is trying to say that dems have tried to curtail free speech in the political arena...

"Polichic is trying to say..."

Funny.....the less articulate pretend they can say what I mean better than I can.


Seems awfully close to lying.....but NYLiar has that covered.
You: quote what I say when you want to say what I say.

The 1st Amendment says Congress can make 'NO LAW'. You agreed with that literally and claimed there should be no wiggle room as you put it from that clear rule.

How then do you justify laws against child porn without 'wiggling'?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, I realize that, but her OP is a total ridiculous fail and discussing it with her is just feeding a boring (not always, but today on this topic) troll. Kosh however is hilarious and entertaining.

That you support to open assault on the 1st Amendment does not mean stating the fact that the fascist democrats seek to crush civil rights is "ridiculous."

{Hours earlier, Democrats announced that they would take the first steps early next month to try to change the First Amendment’s free speech protections, overturning Supreme Court precedent and giving Congress the right to limit who can spend money in elections and how much they are allowed to spend.

Read more: After Reid refuses amendments Senate Republicans kill tax cuts package - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter}

{First, President Obama, the Obama administration, Obama Democrats in Congress and other liberal Democrats in government jobs, wanted to use the FCC to control speech and enforce their brand of political correctness – mainly in newsrooms – with FOX News as one of the primary targets. Basically, they want to silence all opposition. They believe that if someone is saying anything against anyone on the political left, then it is “hate speech.” The means was to be a new FCC program named “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” It would decide which news stories should be covered and which should not be reported. So it is partly about controlling the content and flow of information and news. It would place government monitors in all newsrooms of newspapers, radio, and television. Kind of like a Soviet Political Officer. Obama probably got good advice from Putin for how to do that. However, by 21 February 2014, the FCC was forced to back down – partly because of public outcry. So, that Orwellian plan was abandoned. }

Attack on First Amendment 8211 Freedom of Speech 8211 continues from Liberal Democrats The Lantern Journal

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

Reading your comments should make every conservative shudder in embarrassment. Are you trying to take the crown of Idiot-Gram Leader from CrusaderFrank?

I think there's a mental issue going on there that precludes any attempt at reasoning with such an individual.

 

[Kosh]

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

Reading your comments should make every conservative shudder in embarrassment. Are you trying to take the crown of Idiot-Gram Leader from CrusaderFrank?

And the irony impaired far left drones and their comments as they ignore their own.

Yet still prove that they do not understand the Constitution beyond their far left programming..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.

Polichic is trying to say that dems have tried to curtail free speech in the political arena...

"Polichic is trying to say..."

Funny.....the less articulate pretend they can say what I mean better than I can.


Seems awfully close to lying.....but NYLiar has that covered.
You: quote what I say when you want to say what I say.

The 1st Amendment says Congress can make 'NO LAW'. You agreed with that literally and claimed there should be no wiggle room as you put it from that clear rule.

How then do you justify laws against child porn without 'wiggling'?

She can't. And even if she says it's exploitation she can't account for why a guy who owns CP photos he had nothing to do with is breaking the law.

 

[hadit]

Despite the nut job fantasies and conspiracy theories, free speech is not under attack. Nothing has changed to make us afraid of having our free speech taken away. It has always been against the law to misuse speech in a way that causes unjust harm or puts peoples safety at risk. If you tell lies about a business or person and it causes them harm you will not be able to use a free speech defense. If you use speech to cause a prank or crime, you can not use free speech as a defense or excuse. Free speech can not be used as an excuse to break laws. Walking into a bank and telling the teller you would like to have some money is not protected free speech.

Yes and no matter how "stupid" a far left drone my think the OP is, the far drone that used child porn as their example should win the award for "stupidity"..

However leave it to the far left drones to overlook their own..

Just a hint to the far left: There is no such thing as freedom of speech!

Is child pornography a 1st amendment issue or not?

It is not. It is the exploitation of children.

It was, once, but let's say some guy owns a picture of CP taken 40 years ago, how is that exploitation? Maybe the picture is a from a Sears catalog but he uses it as porn. Legal or not?

In the first case, you still have to deal with damage to a private individual. In the second, you have to define what you're talking about.

 

[Kosh]

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

Reading your comments should make every conservative shudder in embarrassment. Are you trying to take the crown of Idiot-Gram Leader from CrusaderFrank?

I think there's a mental issue going on there that precludes any attempt at reasoning with such an individual.

Well you should be happy that the ACLU claims your obsessed topic is protected.

But then again the far left drones continue to show they do not understand anything in which they post other than far left narrative programming..

 

[Wry Catcher]

Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books. She has created a niche for herself by writing what the far right wants to hear, taking demagoguery to the next level and herself to the bank.

"Coulter, unlike PC, is very bright and has used her abilities to write to convince the far right to buy her books...."


"Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

The popular vote means as much as the amount of time an American football team controls the ball. It's a fun statistic, but meaningless when compared to the number of points scored.

It's not. The EC was a product of compromise, it strongly suggests the will of the people in the aggregate. The EC is obsolete and should be repealed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah yes, a great broad spectrum statement for the intelligentsia meme foundation...

Evidence necessary?

The Libs voted for a proven failure in both domestic and foreign policy attempts.....TWICE!!!

Those were not "Libs" who voted for G. W. Bush, nor were the five who gave him the office of POTUS even though he had lost the popular vote.

And the far left drones show that their political narrative is more important than understanding the Constitution..

Reading your comments should make every conservative shudder in embarrassment. Are you trying to take the crown of Idiot-Gram Leader from CrusaderFrank?

And the irony impaired far left drones and their comments as they ignore their own.

Yet still prove that they do not understand the Constitution beyond their far left programming..

The best part is, none of the conservatives with even half a brain will step outside their partisan cage and denounce Kosh for what he is.