General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

22. "more robust political discourse" is a matter of subjective opinion.

Mon Sep 18, 2017, 10:23 PM

Sep 2017

And it doesn't really matter whether their laws impact it, or not. Were we to try to implement such things here, they would clearly go against the 1st Amendment, and the 1st Amendment not only stands as a watershed beacon in humanity's march towards liberty and freedom of conscience, it also has worked just fine since the bill of rights was first written.

To argue that the first thing we need to do in "response" to a totalitarian shitwit like trump is ditch one of the primary CORE systematic constitutional protections keeping us from ACTUAL fascism... I really don't know how anyone comes up with this shit with a straight face. It's mind-boggling, it's such a bald-faced, inanely wrong-headed, bad idea.

If you look back over the history of the US, far more excesses in terms of violence and oppression were enabled by ignoring or diminishing the 1A, than have been through its careful and proper execution and respect.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If only we had European-style Hate Speech Laws on the books, we wouldn't have a white supremacist in [View all] jcmaine72 Sep 2017 OP

Where are you going wrong? Iggo Sep 2017 #1

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #4

You asked me. I answered. Iggo Sep 2017 #8

Can you please show me where I specifically called for getting rid of freedom of speech? jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #10

Just the speech you don't like? Baconator Sep 2017 #14

How do Europeans manage to have more robust political discourse than we do? jberryhill Sep 2017 #16

"more robust political discourse" is a matter of subjective opinion. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #22

Okay I'll bite jberryhill Sep 2017 #34

They weren't caused BY the 1st Amendment, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #41

Splinter groups, radical parties, and a weakened political center... Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #37

They don't. That's how. GulfCoast66 Sep 2017 #38

The cynical attitude among much of the US population elected Trump muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #47

They don't. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #94

That's merely dogmatic jberryhill Sep 2017 #5

the 18th Amendment has been repealed. And it wasn't part of the Bill of Rights. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #23

So was the third jberryhill Sep 2017 #30

how do you know what I have, or haven't done? Serious question. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #44

Erm.. Kentonio Sep 2017 #63

Yeah, and England wasn't exactly prime cotton-growing country, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #68

Why would you see a contradiction? Kentonio Sep 2017 #74

Because I do. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #76

Yet you should also recognize that propaganda and psychological manipulation are real Kentonio Sep 2017 #81

fine, it's "childish" to support the 1st Amendment. Bill of Rights? clearly written by toddlers. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #82

And there's the childishness in the argument Kentonio Sep 2017 #84

there is no ambiguity in "Congress shall make no law...". That is unambiguous language. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #85

Who cares about ambiguity or a lack of it in an amendment written 226 years ago? Kentonio Sep 2017 #87

And... so the westboro shitheads are allowed to broadcast to the world exactly how awful they are. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #89

The point is that these examples of misuse of free speech represent a larger picture Kentonio Sep 2017 #91

Yep. I don't want to fuck with the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #92

You have done yeoman's work here. Thank you. tritsofme Sep 2017 #105

Who says Europeans enforce the laws sensibly and logically? hack89 Sep 2017 #2

Yes we would. sarah FAILIN Sep 2017 #3

Oh, brother. To dismiss the 1st Amendment with "Yeah, I know...." WinkyDink Sep 2017 #6

You're entitled to your opinion, but if three words taken out of context are all you walked jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #7

'cuz this reflexive bullshit about going after the 1st Amendment as if THAT is somehow the problem Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #20

Oh, I see. So, that makes it okay to take what someone wrote out of context or to present their jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #35

It really seems you don't understand the 1st Amendment, but you're not happy with it as it stands. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #46

Can you remind me of your view of the Citizen's United decision? jberryhill Sep 2017 #39

Boy, you sure seem to know quite a bit about me. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #43

I was just asking the question jberryhill Sep 2017 #56

I don't think you understood. While I question "money is speech" and "corporations are people" Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #67

Neither of those formulations is what the decision was about, though jberryhill Sep 2017 #78

I'm not either, which is why I am not one of the people putting that decision on the front burner. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #79

Brevity is the soul of wit. It is YOU about whom I wonder, re: "bothered posting at all." NOTHING WinkyDink Sep 2017 #55

Despite such laws sarisataka Sep 2017 #9

You do realize there are far right parties in Europe right? mythology Sep 2017 #11

That's a fair point. I'm certainly not arguing that such laws are enforced flawlessly at all times. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #13

Germany in the 1930s didn't have the 1st Amendment, either. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #19

Freedom of Speech Piasladic Sep 2017 #12

lets get some of those old fashioned blasphemy laws here? no thanx nt msongs Sep 2017 #15

Oh, some people are just chomping at the fucking BIT for that. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #18

Ah, yes, the problem is clearly the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #17

Where did I call for the First Amendment to be "done away with"? jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #28

Because questioning things for discussion is blasphemy jberryhill Sep 2017 #31

What's to discuss? Oh, yes, lets chip away at the 1st Amendment because we have a would-be mussolini Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #42

When you ban some forms of speech for what is essentially political reasons, the first amendment Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #95

The great thing about the First Amendment bluepen Sep 2017 #21

It sounds all well and fine until it gets used against you. EllieBC Sep 2017 #24

but ....we might be able to get the full frontal nudity off HBO! Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #25

I never understand why anyone thinks this is a good idea. EllieBC Sep 2017 #29

course. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #45

If you have hate-speech laws, somebody gets to decide what is hate speech... brooklynite Sep 2017 #26

I think I would go the opposite direction and hit him hard with freedom of the press ProudLib72 Sep 2017 #27

Without getting into a philosophical argument, consider what happens when conservatives take power Azathoth Sep 2017 #32

If properly applied there would be no conservatives. ileus Sep 2017 #104

Probably very few, lest of all those here who have been the most vocal in attacking such laws. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #110

Scrapping the First Amendment is practically impossible and would destroy our nation LittleBlue Sep 2017 #33

That's pretty funny. I take it you've never actually been to Europe? Kentonio Sep 2017 #64

"I take it" blah blah blah, here's a Brit explaining why Britain would be our poorest state + stats LittleBlue Sep 2017 #65

That's hilarious. Kentonio Sep 2017 #66

Factoring that in, it's still much higher LittleBlue Sep 2017 #69

And yet again you focus straight in on money. Kentonio Sep 2017 #90

Because money is important LittleBlue Sep 2017 #96

As far as universities go: muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #71

Those are subjective rankings. I posted rankings by endowments LittleBlue Sep 2017 #73

Kerching! You are trying to measure intelligence and civilization with wealth. muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #75

The original question was about civilization LittleBlue Sep 2017 #80

Your system puts the money under private control muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #88

Of course we do. LittleBlue Sep 2017 #97

Swell idea. Let's give the Justice Department, headed by one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III tritsofme Sep 2017 #36

I agree with you 100% Tumbulu Sep 2017 #40

So, out of curiosity: what's the FIRST thing you want censored? Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #48

i really like you Warren, so I will answer your question Tumbulu Sep 2017 #98

I understand. I'm against violence, too, but I don't think censorship is any way to fight/stop it. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #99

But we are a community of people and images are powerful...... Tumbulu Sep 2017 #100

I'll try to answer in as linear and rational a fashion as I can. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #101

Thank you Warren, I am going to think about all that you wrote Tumbulu Sep 2017 #108

Thanks Warren, I am back now and gave your excellent post a lot of thought Tumbulu Oct 2017 #121

I don't mind vigorous debate on this topic, nor do I begrudge someone for holding a different jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #49

So State yourself clearly: sarisataka Sep 2017 #52

I did state myself clearly. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #58

And you really think it is a good idea to give Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III tritsofme Sep 2017 #59

"Hate speech" sarisataka Sep 2017 #60

You accuse people of misrepresentation, while you yourself do the same thing: Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #70

As Voltaire once said ... dawg Sep 2017 #50

My favorite Voltaire quote! Dr. Strange Sep 2017 #62

Seriously. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #77

I'd like to task you with a thought exercise melm00se Sep 2017 #51

+100 Loki Liesmith Sep 2017 #54

Defined by title nine protections for state and federal elections, easy peasy uponit7771 Sep 2017 #72

Tell that to the Supreme Court and the trans-gender community. WinkyDink Sep 2017 #102

Trump is making a lot of people propose dumb ideas Loki Liesmith Sep 2017 #53

It might help if people voted struggle4progress Sep 2017 #57

I'm not a fan of criminalizing something that hasn't been defined onenote Sep 2017 #61

blasphemy and nudity. Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #83

Oregon's state constitution contains even stronger free speech protections than the 1st Amendment Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #86

What protections does it contain? NobodyHere Sep 2017 #106

Here you go: Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #109

That is insane. I would not want to restrict speech...even speech I don't like. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #93

Our side should get to author what is hate speech. ileus Sep 2017 #103

I think you forgot the little sarcasm thingy (n/t) Seeking Serenity Sep 2017 #107

Frankly, it's easier just to ban the Republican Party Fluke a Snooker Sep 2017 #111

They certainly meet most if not all of the criteria laid out by the SPLC to designate them as a hate jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #112

What a disgusting totalitarian fantasy. tritsofme Sep 2017 #113

Why is it disgusting, totalitarian or illiberal to designate an organization that embraces jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #114

no one's buying the act Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #115

Yeah right. I refuse to engage you upthread because of the way you dishonestly portrayed my jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #117

mm hmmm Warren DeMontague Sep 2017 #119

Sorry, but I think I have to block you now. jcmaine72 Sep 2017 #120

I wouldn't mind if none was ever elected again, frankly. Why should I mind? For another murderous WinkyDink Sep 2017 #116

Why stop there? Imagine how great things would be if we just killed everyone who disagrees with us. name not needed Sep 2017 #118