Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....

[Confounding]

You probably saw this Planned Parenthood tweet.....
...it could be the platform of the Democrat Party:

More of your impeccable English?

 

[pismoe]

1) High has zero influence on anyone or anything. He is a kid. Just a kid.
2) speech is protected. If one is going to use ingrahan as an example well she had the right to say what she wants. He then replied. Tit for tat and it's the advertisers who pulled out who are to blame. Why did they stick it out and adhere to principles?
3) My gun rights are safe and no march or anything else has a bit of influence on them.
4) illegals should become citizens before voting I agree.
5) These are reactionary anxiety filled times. People need to relax. The vast majority of people are so tied down to their jobs they dont have time to worry about this stuff. Division is always healthy and this nation is clearly divided by a long list of topics therefore the nation will be fine.

-------------------------------- illegal aliens should become citizens before voting , now thats funny INit !!

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. If you vote Democrat, you are voting in support of the government restricting what you can or cannot say.

Perhaps you subscribe to the view that there is offensive speech.

So what?

“Hate speech” is expression that demeans an individual or a group based on identity markers like race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. As distasteful as this type of communication might be, the American judiciary has consistently held it to be protected by the First Amendment’s requirement that “Congress [and, through the 14th amendment, states and local governments] shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” As Garrett Epps of the Baltimore School of Law and The Atlantic put it in a tweet, in the eyes of the Constitution, “hate speech is just speech.”

[....just not to Communists, Fascists, of Liberals]
Don’t like it, don't use it…..but as an American, whether you use it or not is your birthright, your unalienable right.


Cuomo’s tweet, and his stubborn campaign to defend it in the wake of a merciless assault from the Twitterverse, errs in two ways. First, it’s ludicrous to state that “reading” the Constitution will reveal that hate speech is “excluded from protection.” There is no such language anywhere in the Constitution.

John Stuart Mill argued that speech should only be open to state regulation when it crosses the boundary into action or when, as the Supreme Court held in 1969, it is “brigaded with action.”

Mere offensive speech, however hateful, gets protection under the First Amendment umbrella. But when speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action or spur someone to take the first swing in a barroom brawl, it is curtailable."
Chris Cuomo Won’t Walk Back His Ignorant Tweet About Hate Speech



Except to Democrats......the party that wants to end free speech.

 

[Confounding]

Except to Democrats......the party that wants to end free speech.

You use improper English in every post you make.

 

[Norman]

I don't think anyone can question whether these people are un-Americans at this moment. They certainly are...

But few have realized just how anti any kind of civilization these people are. If they have their way, we will have mud-huts over our heads, a real shit hole...

You probably saw this Planned Parenthood tweet.....
...it could be the platform of the Democrat Party:

"could be"?

Oh it is, it is. Even if not publicly behind closed doors for certain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. If you voted Democrat, you helped put on the Supreme Court of the United States a supporter of restricting your right to free speech, and the abridgment of the First Amendment.


The country took a bullet in living under Barack Hussein Obama, who placed an anti-freedom apparatchik on the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan





"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."


If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?




Remember this?
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.


You voted against the Constitution if your voted Democrat.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Which of Your Rights Will They Go After....


all of them

The in vogue thing today is to make this idiotic argument that you don't have any Rights.

we dont if we allow the leftists to take them

i am not going to allow that for my family or i

 

[Confounding]

You voted against the Constitution if your voted Democrat.

You're voting against it if you support either of the major parties. Nice typing skills as always, by the way.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The next right on the dimwit chopping block is freedom of association.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The next right on the dimwit chopping block is freedom of association.

well certain association

if it is a leftist gathering all is good

that is how fascism works

 

[jc456]

They want the entire constitution

 

[JoeB131]

Why ask the question if you don't want the answer. It's irrelevant. I can live with the 13th and 15th Amendments for the moment. Can you?

It is, however indisputable, that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified.

Nope, last time I checked it was in there.

Either all three are unconstitutional or none of them are. The thing is, you really are trying to just single that one out because it doesn't have a clear a purpose (defining citizenship vs. ending slavery)

But, no, I really don't want to hear your silly opinions on the Great Reconstruction Amendments.

 

[jc456]

Why ask the question if you don't want the answer. It's irrelevant. I can live with the 13th and 15th Amendments for the moment. Can you?

It is, however indisputable, that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified.

Nope, last time I checked it was in there.

Either all three are unconstitutional or none of them are. The thing is, you really are trying to just single that one out because it doesn't have a clear a purpose (defining citizenship vs. ending slavery)

But, no, I really don't want to hear your silly opinions on the Great Reconstruction Amendments.

You want the constitution. Anti American

 

[JoeB131]

You want the constitution. Anti American

Dude, I usually have you on ignore because you add nothing to a conversation... but that sentence didn't even make sense.

 

[jc456]

You want the constitution. Anti American

Dude, I usually have you on ignore because you add nothing to a conversation... but that sentence didn't even make sense.

So you don’t know what,... you want the constitution implies? Really?

It then implies to me you don’t know where our rights come from. What is the OP about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The Supreme Court…before Obama/Kagan fascists declared that the government can restrict free speech, made clear what the test should be.



Brandenburg v. Ohio
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, inMasses Publishing Co. v. Patten,[10] reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



The Brandenburg Test

“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

They want the entire constitution

The Constitution and the entirety of American history.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Right now, Conservatives are attacking

A free press
The right to vote
The 14th amendment

Cons only care about the 2nd and wipe their ass with the rest of the constitution.

Voter suppression is a perfect example .

Voter Fraud IS Voter suppression

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

David Horowitz “Inside every Liberal there is a Totalitarian screaming to get out”

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The dumb Left Wingers get everything backwards.
The Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government, not to protect the government from the people.