R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech

No law means no law.

Quote:

Exceptions to free speech in the United States refers to categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Constitution protects free speech while allowing for limitations on certain categories of speech.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.

2 Replies

@engineer,

This comes up quite often in the Second Amendment threads.

The government is allowed to restrict fundamental rights only if the restrictions can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

That means that restrictions of a fundamental right are allowed only if the restrictions can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

Some restrictions of our fundamental rights do manage to pass muster with strict scrutiny. But this does not mean that any proposed restriction will pass muster.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I asked you, "Please quote the specific statement by Donald Trump that solicited insurrection. " I find it fascinating that you didn't even try. Trump did not solicit insurrection. That's just your wet dream. I'm wrong? Give me the specific text of a statement he made that solicited insurrection.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Yes, you're wrong. I've given you plenty but let's start with your base assertion, the one you use to ignore all the evidence presented to you. You wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech

No law means no law.

The Supreme Court has said this is not true, that obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising do not receive the full protection of the first amendment and there are many laws pertaining to that speech. Do you agree with this?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

What's your problem, Brandon9000? Why on earth would you make a statement like this:

Quote:

That's just your wet dream.

Do you even know what a "wet dream" is? It's completely irrelevant to anything mentioned here. Maybe you confused "insurrection" with "erection"? It's difficult to see why you would even mention it in the context of a political discussion. Do you find the topic erotic or something? No one else does.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Constitutional Law is about judicial lawmaking , not textual interpretations. In other words , as said by J Sell

"THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT MEANS"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the Constitution as it is written. When they do otherwise, their rulings are improper and should be overturned.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"THE CONSTITUTION MEANS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IT MEANS"

I learned this in 11th grade. It's still surprising how many amateurs will start shrieking about what "the Constitution says" when the document itself is mute and its meaning only found in its practical application.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the Constitution as it is written.

And what "well-regulated militia" do you belong to?

2 Replies

Conservative claims of online censorship 'a form of disinformation:' study

Quote:

Claims that conservative voices are being censored online by social media platforms are not backed by evidence and are themselves a disinformation narrative, according to a report released Monday.

The New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights’ report concluded that anti-conservative bias claims, boosted by some top Republican lawmakers including former President Trump, are not based on any tangible evidence.

“The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests,” the report stated.

Republicans have ramped up accusations that social media companies have an anti-conservative bias after Facebook and Twitter took action to ban Trump’s account following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Twitter says it has permanently banned the former president from its platform, while Facebook is leaving the final decision up to its independent oversight body.

The allegation of censorship has been key in Republicans’ attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability associated with third-party content posted on their sites.

Despite the repeated accusations by Republicans, the report found that by “many measures, conservative voices — including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook — often are dominant in online political debates.”

For example, the report highlighted the engagement on Trump’s Facebook page compared to now-President Biden’s page during the three months leading up to Election Day. Trump elicited 87 percent of the total 307 million post interactions between the two, compared to Biden’s 13 percent.

Additionally, the report noted that Fox News and Breitbart News led the pack in terms of Facebook interactions with posts by media organizations from Jan. 1 through Nov. 3 of last year. Fox News had 448 million interactions and Breitbart had 295 million; the closest behind them was CNN, at 191 million interactions.

With Biden in office, Republicans have continued to push back against Section 230 over the unfounded accusations of anti-conservative biases.

The report recommends the Biden administration work with Congress to update Section 230, rather than pushing for a repeal of the law as Trump sought before leaving office.

“The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement,” the report stated.

Biden’s nominee to serve as the secretary of Commerce, current Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D), said last week during a Senate confirmation hearing that the law needs some reform, indicating the administration is open to amending it.

Biden during his presidential campaign said Section 230 should be revoked, but he has largely not detailed plans moving forward.

The report also recommends the Biden administration create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The agency would be charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230.

Additionally, it recommends the Biden administration pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media, including pressing the companies on improving and enforcing content policies.

As for social media companies, the report recommends the industry provide greater disclosure on content moderation actions, offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms, undertake more “vigorous” human moderation of influential accounts and release more data for researchers.

thehill

1 Reply

@engineer,

Again, give me a quotation in which Trump solicited any illegal behavior. Obviously you cannot because he did not.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

https://able2know.org/topic/555089-1

1 Reply

@Real Music,

I expect Brandon9000 will make some comment about the Library of Congress and repeat his tiresome, simplistic, and previously answered request yet again.

1 Reply

@hightor,

I expect that to occur as well.

0 Replies

@hightor,

1. What "well-regulated militia" does Oralloy belong to is an excellent question?

2. I am curious to know what the so-called constitutionalist Oralloy's answer will be.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

And what "well-regulated militia" do you belong to?

How can I be a member of such a militia when no such militia exists?

The government is violating the Constitution by failing to have a militia by the way. The first half of the Second Amendment requires the government to keep up a militia to ensure the nation's security.

Your question implies some sort of requirement for me to be a member of the militia in order to have the right to have guns. Note that there is no such requirement. People who are not in the militia still have the right to have guns for private self defense.

Although if the government did have a militia I would certainly consider joining, as militiamen have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Again, give me a quotation in which Trump solicited any illegal behavior. Obviously you cannot because he did not.

Do you acknowledge that some speech is not protected by the first amendment? It is pretty useless to show you the speech in question if you refuse to believe that such speech is possibly illegal.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

1. What "well-regulated militia" does Oralloy belong to is an excellent question?
2. I am curious to know what the so-called constitutionalist Oralloy's answer will be.

It would seem like you guys would learn when you make the same bogus points over and over again and they get slapped down over and over again.

I guess I'm not complaining. It's a fun subject for me. I actually kind of enjoy slapping down this particular bogus point over and over again.

It's just a little strange that you guys don't seem capable of learning.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Explore the future you've always wanted

When you join the Army National Guard, you’re joining a team with purpose and setting yourself up for a successful future. You’ll gain job skills and leadership experience, and get a head start on your civilian career. Explore the many ways Guard service can accelerate your path.

https://www.nationalguard.com/

1 Reply

@Real Music,

If this is supposed to be a claim that the National Guard is the militia, it is not.

The National Guard is a part of the US Army.

Again with the same old claims that have been debunked millions of times before. But at least it's a subject that I enjoy pontificating about. So there's that.

0 Replies

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Quick Links

My Account

able2know