Feed Your Head 2/16/08: The First Amendment

MsDoodahs

MsDoodahs

Senior
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
11,373
Amendment I

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.


--------------

The focus today is Freedom of Speech. :)

The First Amendment guarantees you that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT won't make laws to control your speech.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee you the right to spout your crapola any and everywhere.

The Amendments are LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Those of you who insist that the First guarantees you unfettered exercise of your free speech, regardless of where you happen to be, are mistaken.

The ONLY thing the First Amendment does is guarantee you that the FED GOV will not make laws to control your speech.

This is an important distinction that some of the membership here has not been able to grasp. Time to grasp it.

MsD
 
For a group wanting to restore the Constitution, a lot of us are surprisingly misinformed about our much-beloved document.
 
10th Amendment - where all rights are reserved to the people.

We have the sovereign right to do anything a king could do, we **delegated** some things to the government, but the only reason they have any powers is because we do, they flow from us to them.

We have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else etc....

So who is harmed, who is the injured party if someone says something you don't like on a forum post that you can just hit "close" on?
 
Edu said:
We have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else etc....

So who is harmed, who is the injured party if someone says something you don't like on a forum post that you can just hit "close" on?
Click to expand...

*cough*private property rights*cough*
 
Edu said:
10th Amendment - where all rights are reserved to the people.

We have the sovereign right to do anything a king could do, we **delegated** some things to the government, but the only reason they have any powers is because we do, they flow from us to them.

We have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else etc....

So who is harmed, who is the injured party if someone says something you don't like on a forum post that you can just hit "close" on?
Click to expand...

While I agree that the 10th amendment takes the 1st amendment and applies it to government at every level, it doesn't apply to private entities.
 
yongrel said:
*cough*private property rights*cough*
Click to expand...
Yes, but I say again, who is injured by some stupid words in a post here?

And I'm not the one who brought the Constitution into the forum anyway, it really doesn't apply here, like you said, it's up to whoever runs the forum to edit it how they like.

But again, I don't think anyone is injured by a bunch of words. If they are, they need to grow up.

Peer pressure will probably work, and seems to pretty well on open forums that censor stuff too much, and things do run their course if you just leave it alone.
 
Edu said:
Yes, but I say again, who is injured by some stupid words in a post here?

And I'm not the one who brought the Constitution into the forum anyway, it really doesn't apply here, like you said, it's up to whoever runs the forum to edit it how they like.

But again, I don't think anyone is injured by a bunch of words. If they are, they need to grow up.

Peer pressure will probably work, and seems to pretty well on open forums that censor stuff too much, and things do run their course if you just leave it alone.
Click to expand...

The issue of injury does not apply. Private property overrides your freedom to speak on private property. Ownership is absolute. If the forum owners declared you could only use words that begin with "x" they would be within their rights. The posts would fall to zero and someone else would step in with a replacement board, but that has nothing to do with their private property rights either.
 
Well, maybe it does apply, since this is a public board and readable by everyone, even non members, if someone says something that is "protected speech" then the 1st would apply and the forum and poster wouldn't be liable (maybe, check with your lawyer, heh).

And injury may apply, since the forum could be sued for damages, you need a injury for that. But how you would show a injury is not clear.

But I agree with the other posters who said the admins have the right to edit as they wish, and may suffer the rage of the other posters here if they go too far.
 
The First Amendment is a RESTRICTION ON THE FED GOV.

That doesn't mean that other entities can't restrict your speech.

You have the right to do what you want on your own private property.

Here's a little ditty about private property. Sing it to the tune of "this land is my land."

This land is my land,

This land's not your land.

I've got a shotgun.

And you ain't got one.

If you don't get off.

I'll blow your head off.

This land is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

:D:D:D
 
I actually disagree =)


Your rights are not given to you, or allowed, by a government or any man made establishment. Your rights are yours, given to you from your creator or nature or whatever from birth. You only don't have them if you allow someone to take them from you.

So yes, the constitution prevents the fed gov from violating your rights (in theory anyway, heh). However, that doesn't mean state government has the right to take your rights away. Not how it works under our law and our philosophy. If a state passes a law that says it's illegal to trash talk president bush in public for example, that would still be unconstitutional. And if I'm not mistaken the supreme court has held state laws 'unconstitutional' before, so it doesn't track with your description there either.

So by your description state sponsored eminent domain (this is being expanded greatly across america atm fairly quietly) and free speech zones are constitutional and OK since state legislatures passed the laws. I disagree, and still find them unconstitutional in my interpretation.
 
"That doesn't mean that other entities can't restrict your speech."

Is that the offending term?

Does it imply state/local gov't when you read it? Was not my intent.

Think private entities.

Like say...this forum. :)
 
MsDoodahs said:
"That doesn't mean that other entities can't restrict your speech."

Is that the offending term?

Does it imply state/local gov't when you read it? Was not my intent.

Think private entities.

Like say...this forum. :)
Click to expand...

Ah, in that respect I see what you mean and completely agree.

Stems more from property rights though IMO.

My freedom to yell f*** the neocons ends on your property if you don't like it. =) Just like my right to swing my arm around ends at your face =)
 
Okay, totally off topic, but when I read that, it reminded me of that Jeff Foxworthy bit...old men want a beer and to see something naked...but...NOT THAT, NOT THAT!

lol...
 
I think I remember them saying she was hot, and she went to court naked just to make a point. The judge made her put something on, so no beer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matt Collins
Rand Introduces Free Speech Protection Act
Replies
2
Views
630
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
Rand Urges Reversal Of TikTok Ban
Replies
0
Views
710
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
ammodotcom
The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.'s Favorite Political Weapon
Replies
2
Views
2K
unknown
unknown
PAF
Tweedledee and Tweedledum
Replies
5
Views
4K
jmdrake
jmdrake
Brian4Liberty
Oppose a War And Get Sent To Fight (or Die) In It?
Replies
0
Views
929
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top