The Democrat War Against Free Speech

[paperview]

Burning an American flag is political speech. Flags do no give off sufficient heat or light. They are inefficient fuel. But burning one on the courthouse steps isn't intended to provide heat or light. It is intended as political speech.

Should flag burning be protected speech? As there is no wiggle room, no doubt the OP would support protester's right to light up Old Glory.

Now, soon will come responses by right wing idiots who will say that my example means I support flag burning. Unfortunately, here at USMB, we get bogged down in the un-nuanced minds of such folk, as we have seen with the comments about child pornography. Using examples is a great way of making a point, but those examples, when taken literally by literalists tend to put the brakes on sound arguments.

Just consider the OP when she states "no wiggle room" even when faced with true political speech like flag burning.

Bingo!

And BTW, as I mentioned early, was introduced and suported by a great many Republicans to BAN that form of Free Speech, and even enshrine that ban on Free Speech in the Constitution.

 

[Nosmo King]

What about the Social Conservatives mandating gag orders at family planning clinics? Seems medical professionals aren't permitted to speak of abortion, should their clinic receive federal grant money. Did congress make a law prohibiting free speech in a doctor's office?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What about the Social Conservatives mandating gag orders at family planning clinics? Seems medical professionals aren't permitted to speak of abortion, should their clinic receive federal grant money. Did congress make a law prohibiting free speech in a doctor's office?

The OP, and the rightwingers here are OK with that. If not, they would say so, so let's see if they do?

 

[Impenitent]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

"...the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions."

No....we're talking about the Leftists using the courts to restrict the speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Coulter:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

Quoting Coulter is a bit off topic, beside, she has a history of being vague on election law. She's just trying to sell books... To vapid goose-steppers such as yourself.

Talk about campaign finance, that's what your stolen op is about.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

Reality again. Burning the American flag is an act of Political Speech, meaning Free Speech.

Of course it is and when a true patriot like rick Monday sees it This wiil happen

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

 

[Kosh]

Burning an American flag is political speech. Flags do no give off sufficient heat or light. They are inefficient fuel. But burning one on the courthouse steps isn't intended to provide heat or light. It is intended as political speech.

Should flag burning be protected speech? As there is no wiggle room, no doubt the OP would support protester's right to light up Old Glory.

Now, soon will come responses by right wing idiots who will say that my example means I support flag burning. Unfortunately, here at USMB, we get bogged down in the un-nuanced minds of such folk, as we have seen with the comments about child pornography. Using examples is a great way of making a point, but those examples, when taken literally by literalists tend to put the brakes on sound arguments.

Just consider the OP when she states "no wiggle room" even when faced with true political speech like flag burning.

Bingo!

And BTW, as I mentioned early, was introduced and suported by a great many Republicans to BAN that form of Free Speech, and even enshrine that ban on Free Speech in the Constitution.

What about the Social Conservatives mandating gag orders at family planning clinics? Seems medical professionals aren't permitted to speak of abortion, should their clinic receive federal grant money. Did congress make a law prohibiting free speech in a doctor's office?

Oh look at the far left propaganda drones and their comments!

Once again showing that Freedom or Speech to the far left is just a talking point as they clearly do not understand it.

Next thing you know the far left will want to ban hate speech..

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we're talking about is the right oh the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions.

Because, using a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we know our founders assumed that money is speech.

"...the Waltons and the Kochs t to buy favorable candidates and legislation.with unlimited campaign contributions."

No....we're talking about the Leftists using the courts to restrict the speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Coulter:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

Quoting Coulter is a bit off topic, beside, she has a history of being vague on election law. She's just trying to sell books... To vapid goose-steppers such as yourself.

Talk about campaign finance, that's what your stolen op is about.

It takes a certain sort of imbecile, basically a weak-kneed one, to try to complain about the source of a truth rather than confront the truth itself.

Recognize yourself in this statement?
Good.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

Reality again. Burning the American flag is an act of Political Speech, meaning Free Speech.

Of course it is and when a true patriot like rick Monday sees it This wiil happen

The OP's kind of guy, even though it is the exact opposite of her OP.

 

[paperview]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

To repeat -- by bringing up Free Speech and in the sweeping manner as you did in the OP, you most certainly bring up that which entails Free Speech.

Or do you think you can only pick out the bits and pieces of Free Speech that only suit your purpose?

 

[BluesLegend]

Well liberals throwing out extreme idiotic examples to deflect was entirely predictable.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's take a more blatant example of Democrat's war against free speech....


Democrats/Liberals/Progressives find all sorts of great reasons to ignore ..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."


Vote for them, and this is the sort of thing that you get:

6. "In another corner of Harry Reid's Senate sits an attempt to expand federal surveillance of "hate speech."
Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts just introduced a bill called the Hate Crimes Reporting Act. Its purpose, said Sen. Markey, is "to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes and hate speech that is not outside the protections of the First Amendment." The potential causes of offense are "gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

In other words, anything.


Sophisticates will recognize that the bill should be better known as the Shut Up Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Act (newspapers are protected from any such regulation).
But on their current, unrestrained course, federally deputized talk censors [Democrats] would get around to cleansing and sterilizing MSNBC, too.


We are moving way past the amusements of political correctness. A creeping, even creepy, effort is under way to shut people up for a broad swath of offenses. The distance is shortening between the First Amendment's formal protections and a "Fahrenheit 451" regime for torching speech in America. The time for adult pushback is overdue."
Harry Reid Hates the Redskins - WSJ.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

And PC cited Coulter, so the IQ just drops from here.

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well liberals throwing out extreme idiotic examples to deflect was entirely predictable.

Really, isn't any example, no matter insane it is, that is outlawed against the OP?

What's so extreme about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire just to watch people run? Or calling in a fake fire report to watch the fire department and cops respond? Sounds like what a kid would do for fun to me, and they are both illegal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech, which by the way, was something many on the Republican party wanted to ban - so much so, they tried to enshrine that prohibition on Free Speech in our Constitution.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

 

[Kosh]

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

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.

Oh my one would be led to believe from this far left drones post, that the far left drones will not do the same thing..

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just wondering.....which of her best sellers have you read?

You mean the toxic wench who said her only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building?

Or do you prefer only problem with a terrorist is that he didn't blow up Fox News?

No, only a crazed loon would say something like. Nutcake Coulter obviously has a problem with First Amendment.

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let's take a more blatant example of Democrat's war against free speech....


Democrats/Liberals/Progressives find all sorts of great reasons to ignore ..... "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."


Vote for them, and this is the sort of thing that you get:

6. "In another corner of Harry Reid's Senate sits an attempt to expand federal surveillance of "hate speech."
Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts just introduced a bill called the Hate Crimes Reporting Act. Its purpose, said Sen. Markey, is "to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes and hate speech that is not outside the protections of the First Amendment." The potential causes of offense are "gender, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

In other words, anything.


Sophisticates will recognize that the bill should be better known as the Shut Up Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Act (newspapers are protected from any such regulation).
But on their current, unrestrained course, federally deputized talk censors [Democrats] would get around to cleansing and sterilizing MSNBC, too.


We are moving way past the amusements of political correctness. A creeping, even creepy, effort is under way to shut people up for a broad swath of offenses. The distance is shortening between the First Amendment's formal protections and a "Fahrenheit 451" regime for torching speech in America. The time for adult pushback is overdue."
Harry Reid Hates the Redskins - WSJ.com

He's an idiot, I hate Book-Burners, but here he has that right to, Liberals gave it to him.

 

[paperview]

"The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."

Link, you dunce?

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

Your OP, dunce.

When you speak of Free Speech, you bring up all that *is* Free Speech.

There is no such mention in the OP.

See how you've catapulted yourself into the liar category?

1. Is flag desecration Free Speech or not?

Yes or No?

2. Is your OP about Free Speech?

Yes or No?

The answer is Yes in both case.

You wrote: "The OP also brought up flag desecration - which is Free Speech,..."


That was a lie, wasn't it.

QED...you are a liar.

If you don't believe that flag burning is Protected Free Speech, then you nothing of either.

"The flag of the United States is sometimes symbolically burned, often in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech." However, content-neutral restrictions may still be imposed to regulate the time, place, and manner of such expression.

In 1862, during the Union army's occupation of New Orleans in the American Civil War, the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced William B. Mumford to death for removing an American flag. In 1864 John Greenleaf Whittier wrote the poem Barbara Frietchie, which told of a (probably fictional) incident in which Confederate soldiers were deterred from defacing an American flag. The poem contains the famous lines:

"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.

During the United States involvement in the Vietnam War American flags were sometimes burned during war protest demonstrations.[79]

After the Johnson and Eichman decisions, several flag burning amendments to the Constitution were proposed. On June 22, 2005, a Flag Desecration Amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, another attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.[80]"
Flag desecration - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I've made no statement about flag burning in this thread.

But your attempt to shift the thread is one more proof of the fear you have of the truth: Democrats fear and hate free speech.

So you DO want to pick and choose that which entails Free Speech.

Even though you said there was "no wiggle room" about laws made to prohibit it.

Your discussion is about only "certain forms" of Free Speech if you deny you brought it up-- which pretty much nukes your whole OP.