User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Is Progressive Ideology Incompatible With The First Amendment?

  1. #11
    Points: 665,250, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,547
    Points
    665,250
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DLLS View Post
    Chris (at the risk of being unduly informal) the First Amendment has through the years been expanded to include a lot of things the founders clearly could not have intended.

    As an example, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" the press has taken this to mean that they can rely on secret (read made up) sources without having to reveal who those sources are. That they are free to barge into any place they want to and shove a microphone in a persons face.

    My understanding of the intent of that part of the first amendment is that it prohibited the government from preventing the publication of newspapers, not that it gave reporters carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted to.

    The Supremes have completely misinterpreted the establishment clause. All it states, in simple terms, is that there will not be a Church of the United States like there was a Church of England. It does not state a high school coach cannot walk out to the middle of a football field and kneel in prayer. It does not state that a decades old cross erected on private land that has since become public land must be torn down. These acts in my opinion violate the part of the first that prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    Limiitng myself to just free speech, even of the press, I agree, it has been expanded beyond what I would call the expression or seeking of truth to allow for the invention of truth, of truthiness, of even fiction. And I think this is where progressives abuse free speech the most. They are concerned with agendas and will pick facts, stretch events, invent motivations, and defy laws all in order to compose nice narratives that are full of sound and fury but signify nothing--word salads you can't shake them from with contradictory facts, event, motivations, laws. Still, while I think you need to be aware of that, you cannot stifle it and keep free speech alive. Who knows, they may stumple over their fictions and accidently discover some truth.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-07-2018)

  3. #12
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DLLS View Post
    Chris (at the risk of being unduly informal) the First Amendment has through the years been expanded to include a lot of things the founders clearly could not have intended.

    As an example, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" the press has taken this to mean that they can rely on secret (read made up) sources without having to reveal who those sources are. That they are free to barge into any place they want to and shove a microphone in a persons face.

    My understanding of the intent of that part of the first amendment is that it prohibited the government from preventing the publication of newspapers, not that it gave reporters carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wanted to.

    The Supremes have completely misinterpreted the establishment clause. All it states, in simple terms, is that there will not be a Church of the United States like there was a Church of England. It does not state a high school coach cannot walk out to the middle of a football field and kneel in prayer. It does not state that a decades old cross erected on private land that has since become public land must be torn down. These acts in my opinion violate the part of the first that prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
    I agree with all of this except the press part. The press acts so obnoxious because they are allowed to act that way. If Sarah Sanders said that anyone interrupting her when she is answering a question they would be escorted out there wouldn't be this problem.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  4. #13
    Points: 8,447, Level: 21
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    barb012's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1469
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,909
    Points
    8,447
    Level
    21
    Thanks Given
    1,156
    Thanked 1,459x in 906 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Technically, er, politically, when it comes to the First Amendment, free speech is only protected against the government intruding upon it: "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."

    Socially, I think we would all want to protect it even when we find the ideas expressed most offensive. For all opinions and ideas are offensive to some, but it's the only way we have we have to pursue truth.

    This guy gets it right:

    I love Jordan Peterson as he does speak the absolute truth. I am puzzled why this person did not understand what he said right off the bat as this is common sense.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to barb012 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (07-07-2018),DGUtley (07-10-2018)

  6. #14
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not what people say; it's what people do when they are saying it that makes the problem and puts free speech on ton trial.

    Anti Vietnam war activists (by the hundreds of thousands) were not arrested for speaking out, they were arrested for rioting and injuring other people. In the south however, civil rights activists WERE arrested for what they said and killed as well because of it.

    Today's reincarnation of the "freedom of speech movement" however has both riotous involvement and is being used in order to persecute people: said speech can be offensive, but it is also a tool, a means to an end. Citizen's Untied is an excellent example of that. Now dark money from sources completely unknown, most probably foreign in a lot of cases, but corporate for sure, are using freedom of speech, as so ordered by the court, to further an agenda which more and more creates a divide and suppresses others.

    I have often thought that our enemies have using our constitution to beat us over the head and further their agenda and it's certainly working. The latest example of which is the 2016 presidential election.

  7. #15
    Points: 665,250, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,547
    Points
    665,250
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    It's not what people say; it's what people do when they are saying it that makes the problem and puts free speech on ton trial.

    Anti Vietnam war activists (by the hundreds of thousands) were not arrested for speaking out, they were arrested for rioting and injuring other people. In the south however, civil rights activists WERE arrested for what they said and killed as well because of it.

    Today's reincarnation of the "freedom of speech movement" however has both riotous involvement and is being used in order to persecute people: said speech can be offensive, but it is also a tool, a means to an end. Citizen's Untied is an excellent example of that. Now dark money from sources completely unknown, most probably foreign in a lot of cases, but corporate for sure, are using freedom of speech, as so ordered by the court, to further an agenda which more and more creates a divide and suppresses others.

    I have often thought that our enemies have using our constitution to beat us over the head and further their agenda and it's certainly working. The latest example of which is the 2016 presidential election.
    A progressive speaks and lives up to the description in the OP. Speech that doesn't concern to the progressive consensus is deemed violent and needs to be outlawed.

    Thank you, jet.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (07-11-2018)

  9. #16
    Points: 665,250, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,547
    Points
    665,250
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Here's the problem with jet's position: Free Speech: No Exceptions

    Within the free speech movement, there is a small set of individuals that refer to themselves as ‘free speech absolutists.’ This is a title we should all proudly embrace, even though some would argue these people are endangering democracy.

    A free speech absolutist supports free speech in every possible way, rejecting any exceptions to the rule. Once an exception to the rule is introduced, this paves the way for other exceptions, including those that can be expanded and exploited, like an exception for so-called ‘hate speech’.

    The exception for hate speech is at the core of the free speech debate. The more radical authoritarians seek to exploit the rule by including offensive words, microaggressions, and other relatively harmless words under the hate speech label. The absurdity of declaring words as hateful based on something as subjective as offense is quite clear to anyone that values freedom of speech.

    ...The most commonly accepted forms of hate speech are calls for acts of physical violence. For legitimate cases of people clearly and willingly advocating direct violence (as opposed to actions that some would consider indirect forms of violence, like taxation or ownership of violence), this is not a free speech issue. The problem is not the speech itself, but the violence resulting from it.

    If an individual were to openly recommend that his or her listeners initiate violence against a person or group, the crime itself is the violence that results. The person speaking is intentionally causing violence, and can thus be held responsible for the violence that results from this. Again, the crime in this case is violence, not speech. This situation is similar to if a person hired an assassin to kill someone. The act of murder still falls upon the person hiring the assassin. But just because a verbal order is involved does not mean this is a free speech issue....
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (07-10-2018)

  11. #17
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DLLS View Post
    Free speech protections apply to black N.F.L. players who kneel while working at the job site.

    Free speech protections do not apply to a McDonalds employee who, while working at the job site, tells a potential customer to eat at Burger King.

    Free speech protections apply to Madonna who says she thought about blowing up the white house.

    Free speech protections do not apply to conservatives, like Ann Coulter, who want to speak at Berkley.

    Regarding the N.F.L. players have any of them led a protest against police brutality in front of a police station or city hall?
    The NFL players had their employers consent. They pissed off a lot of their audience though. The NFL lost a lot of money.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  12. #18
    Points: 34,652, Level: 45
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 798
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points
    midcan5's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    71955
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    5,953
    Points
    34,652
    Level
    45
    Thanks Given
    1,333
    Thanked 2,497x in 1,841 Posts
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It must be because there is a 'dark money' supported article online saying it is! LOL It is hard for me to take these threads serious. Of course for the conservative snowflake 'progressivism' that be bad, you know real real bad. And Progressives don't like free speech cause cause well cause they don't like bad court decisions. That must be extra bad. You think.


    'Let's start telling the truth about what the Supreme Court does'
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...4e0_story.html

    'The answer is simple and has to do with the fact that law is not anything like science — and that what the Supreme Court does has little to do with the dispassionate application of clear laws to clear facts.

    'Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted by Ian Millhiser
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

    "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." Philip K. Dick



    "Liberals and progressives have been slow to realize that their preferred vocabulary has been hijacked and that when they respond to once - hallowed phrases they are responding to a ghost now animated by a new machine, The point is not a small one, for in any debate, especially one fought in the arena of public opinion, the battle is won not by knock - down arguments but by the party that succeeds in placing its own spin on the terms presiding over the discussion. That's what the conservatives in and out of Congress have managed to do with old war horses like "individual" and so long as they are allowed to get away with it, the opposition will spend its time insisting that it too is for the individual or for color-blindness or equal opportunity - and before we know it all the plovers will be dead and all the subcontractors will once again be white." Stanley Fish, 'The Trouble with Principle' (http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/hijacked.htm)
    Last edited by midcan5; 07-11-2018 at 11:23 AM. Reason: fix link
    Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA, we do. AF Veteran, INFJ-A, I am not PC.

    "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire

  13. #19
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    It's not what people say; it's what people do when they are saying it that makes the problem and puts free speech on ton trial.

    Anti Vietnam war activists (by the hundreds of thousands) were not arrested for speaking out, they were arrested for rioting and injuring other people. In the south however, civil rights activists WERE arrested for what they said and killed as well because of it.

    Today's reincarnation of the "freedom of speech movement" however has both riotous involvement and is being used in order to persecute people: said speech can be offensive, but it is also a tool, a means to an end. Citizen's Untied is an excellent example of that. Now dark money from sources completely unknown, most probably foreign in a lot of cases, but corporate for sure, are using freedom of speech, as so ordered by the court, to further an agenda which more and more creates a divide and suppresses others.

    I have often thought that our enemies have using our constitution to beat us over the head and further their agenda and it's certainly working. The latest example of which is the 2016 presidential election.
    the Alt-left cult has been screaming about "dark money" and have to identify it. Or show that it even exists. how could dark money influence SCOTUS?
    Fact's, ma man, facts.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  14. #20
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    A progressive speaks and lives up to the description in the OP. Speech that doesn't concern to the progressive consensus is deemed violent and needs to be outlawed.

    Thank you, jet.
    ...as jet stands within inches of your face screaming at you that your 1st A rights don't mean squat
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts