The First Amendment

[Gunny]

John Kerry told some European leaders that the 1st amendment makes it "hard to govern."
because people are self selecting news...
as apposed to the gov't telling them everything via the MSM.




Reporter Mat Tiabi (who had his house raided by the IRS after making reports the Biden Admin didnt like) speaking to congress about those comments and the new EU laws that censor free speech there.

Taibbi exercised his Rights in an appropriate forum. Politicized and weaponized government has nothing to do with freedom of anything except itself. So long as the government and the people allow it, it won't change.

John Kerry is a political opportunist without any substance otherwise. He is in fact a poster child for censorship. Not to mention likewise a poster child for people expressing themselves through the vote choosing more wisely. This charlatan jump started his career lying to Congress and hasn't stopped lying to the people since.

The problem I see in each scenario you mention is stupid people in power, or abusing a Constitutional Right by pushing it beyond the extreme. The guy that did it right got raked over the coals by a bunch of partisan hacks. Likewise, rabble was allowed to interfere with when not threatening the Rights of others and received tacit if not outright support from the aforementioned partisan hacks.

Those who cannot exercise their Rights responsibly are doomed to lose them, usually by their own hand.

[revelarts]

Taibbi exercised his Rights in an appropriate forum. Politicized and weaponized government has nothing to do with freedom of anything except itself. So long as the government and the people allow it, it won't change.

John Kerry is a political opportunist without any substance otherwise. He is in fact a poster child for censorship. Not to mention likewise a poster child for people expressing themselves through the vote choosing more wisely. This charlatan jump started his career lying to Congress and hasn't stopped lying to the people since.

The problem I see in each scenario you mention is stupid people in power, or abusing a Constitutional Right by pushing it beyond the extreme. The guy that did it right got raked over the coals by a bunch of partisan hacks. Likewise, rabble was allowed to interfere with when not threatening the Rights of others and received tacit if not outright support from the aforementioned partisan hacks.

Those who cannot exercise their Rights responsibly are doomed to lose them, usually by their own hand.

Hard to tell by this where you land gunny.
But i'm thinking where generally close. sorta

Where we might differ is that, IMO If there's a choice between citizens freedoms/rights vs gov'ts responsibilities & "safety" i'm generally leaning hard towards individual freedoms/rights rather than any supposed govt/collective "necessity".
Generally i dont like setting the precedent of the govt taking rights. It's become a bad habit. and the rights lost have rarely come back. It's as if the people never had them.

Seems clear to me that where the constitution lands freedom wise IS FAR back from where we are now.
& It's a document more about freedoms and limiting govt powers rather than "safety" or supposed good order.

I think I understand your thoughts about "the people" behaving badly. But i don't assume that govt is daddy or momma who have the right or responsibility to take the car keys away because the people are acting too irresponsibly.

I'm more concerned about crazy -big sister- locking people in the closet because of a supposed dirty look from the others.
& Angry drunk -big brother- putting padlocks on the exits & burning the house down because the others "don't know how to act".

[revelarts]

She Was Arrested for Praying in Her Head


https://www.thefp.com/p/abortion-buf...ng-in-her-head

Citizens in the UK have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for silently praying outside abortion clinics. Even organizing pro-life meetings in your own home may be a criminal offense.

I'm sure we should not be concerned about things like that happeing here
unless people abuse their freedoms maybe.



..
BTW In contrast muslims pray on streets & on loud speakers all over Europe.


Germany
prosecuting online "hate speech".
Raiding homes.
Free speech has "limits"

[revelarts]

Britain is putting people on curfews for social media posts

“A young woman from Liverpool called Chelsea Russell — Her friend was killed in a car crash, a 19-year-old woman, and she posted the lyrics of his favorite song on her Instagram. And there was a rap song, so the lyrics contained several instances of the N-word. She was arrested. Prosecuted, found guilty, given 500 hours of community service and a fine, tagged and for a year she was under 8pm to 8am curfew.“

“In Russia last year, 400 people were arrested for things that they said on social media.

How many people do you think were arrested in Britain for things they said on social media last year?

3,300. Arrested for what they'd said on social media”

https://missliberty.com/uk-over-3300...sive-comments/

[fj1200]

How about a thread that talks about how sad it is that foreign countries do not have a First Amendment?

[Kathianne]

How about a thread that talks about how sad it is that foreign countries do not have a First Amendment?

I kinda get the German folks thinking it's ok, keeps 'order,' as it were. The Brits? They just seemed to have become automons saying, 'Yes to anything the state comes up with. I'd think they'd be on the streets, but no.'

[Kathianne]

How far the Brits have gone:

https://pjmedia.com/chris-queen/2025...urope-n4937087

[Kathianne]

One more on the power of free speech and when it's removed:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-van...icism-response

[Gunny]

Hard to tell by this where you land gunny.
But i'm thinking where generally close. sorta

Where we might differ is that, IMO If there's a choice between citizens freedoms/rights vs gov'ts responsibilities & "safety" i'm generally leaning hard towards individual freedoms/rights rather than any supposed govt/collective "necessity".
Generally i dont like setting the precedent of the govt taking rights. It's become a bad habit. and the rights lost have rarely come back. It's as if the people never had them.

Seems clear to me that where the constitution lands freedom wise IS FAR back from where we are now.
& It's a document more about freedoms and limiting govt powers rather than "safety" or supposed good order.

I think I understand your thoughts about "the people" behaving badly. But i don't assume that govt is daddy or momma who have the right or responsibility to take the car keys away because the people are acting too irresponsibly.

I'm more concerned about crazy -big sister- locking people in the closet because of a supposed dirty look from the others.
& Angry drunk -big brother- putting padlocks on the exits & burning the house down because the others "don't know how to act".

I lean toward good order and discipline. And that boils down to common sense, courtesy and consideration for others. I hold myself to a higher standard than the higher standard I have always been held to. There should be no reason whatsoever for this discussion to even exist but for those who are inconsiderate of others, have no standards, could care less about good order/behaving responsibly as citizens.

I did mention common sense, right? When this nabob rabble doesn't even know what it's protesting about, or is stupid, and trampling all over the rights of others to force them to listen to a bunch of bullshit they've been told to chant like the mindless magpies they are to sooth their attention-whoring egos, what exactly is it they are accomplishing? They might draw so mindless sheeple to their side to help them chant, but they aren't selling anything to anyone they are pissing the F- off by interfering with THEIR Rights to go about their business without being annoyed by human gnats.

Pushed as far as mostly the left has gone to where people even have to have this discussion and choose, I'm choosing the good order and discipline of society over anarchist morons in order for society to function. That doesn't mean fascism, totalitarianism or what have you. Society doesn't without the people, nor can the people function nowadays without society. It's a codependent relationship that requires (personal) responsibility and consideration. While you may think otherwise as many do, the US Constitution is not based on "self" first. "In order to form a more perfect society ...".

That isn't how it is and I don't agree with it and I don't conduct myself according to any such lack of standards accepted mostly by the left of societies. I also do not live in fear of losing the "Right" to be a public jackass since I don't conduct myself as one to begin with. If I feel some urge to address government, I will address it to someone who has a better chance of doing something about it than some sheeple on the corner carrying signs.

[Gunny]

One more on the power of free speech and when it's removed:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-van...icism-response

I saw the interview. In context, I can see where the interviewer was going, but she did a damned good job of saying it wrong.

The fact is, the Brownshirts and Hitler DID take advantage of free speech to sell Naziism as an alternative to post WWI depression mainly brought on by the draconian terms of the Armistice, backed up by a World-wide Depression. Rubio in turn seized the moment to knee-jerk flag-waving, Mom, 'Murica and apple pie at the shallowest level.

She obviously had no idea beyond the cliff notes what she was talking about nor any understanding that no matter how technically correct the basic facts are that a pro-absolutist is going to reject them in lieu of rhetoric. She really made herself look stupid, but Rubio did himself no favors, IMO.

As far as Europe is concerned, regardless one's absolutism or not, I definitely don't agree with its censorship based on woke/PC, political ideology.

[Gunny]

Just for clarification since it seems the gist of this thread is the sound one makes coming out of one's mouth, are we just discussing running one's suck? Or flip-flopping between that and the idea of freedom of expression in the abstract?

[revelarts]

One more on the power of free speech and when it's removed:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-van...icism-response

Full article
https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...speech-threat/


Turley below
Turley's Vance comments start after 1:45 mark

[Kathianne]

There's not much we disagree with, but I'm pretty much an absolutist on 1st. I believe one may find consequences for blabbing or burning flag or other inappropriate words or actions; but legal? Yeah.