ONCE AGAIN, Democrats say the First Amendment is "not absolute"

Hillary has said it, Obama has said it, and Kamala Harris has said it. (To name just a few)

They should just come right out and say they want to censor those who disagree with them, because that is, in fact, exactly what they are saying.

But because they believe the citizenry is stupid, they say they're doing it "to protect us". Then they talk condescendingly about how things aren't "absolute". Many of these scumbags are lawyers, so they think they can hide their fascist speech in legalese and governmentese. It's comical to watch them do their song and dance in public, before an audience who can see through the b.s.

This six and a half minutes is a must-watch. Everyone needs to see this. This is truly "1984" stuff. Big Brother is watching you.
Here we have New York Democrat Dan Goldman explain how the First Amendment is "not absolute", but Florida Republican Kat Cammack calls him out. Cammack points out that she has a Gadsden flag decal on her laptop computer. Don't Tread On Me. Jordan Peterson weighs in. Referring to Peterson, a YouTube commenter replied: "It takes a Canadian to explain the First Amendment to a Democrat US Congressman".



More examples of dems thinking speech MUST be monitored, because free speech is a threat to democracy. But who decides what is and isn't allowed? They do! along with the WEF and the U.N.

Hillary Clinton's long war on free speech

Obama says Speech must be monitored and regulated

Back in 2019, Kamala Harris says Trump’s Twitter account should be suspended


Finally, I think this clip sums it up. You couldn't find a more perfect example of how these leftist fascists think. A co-host on "The View" responds to an argument about censorship. You couldn't find a more cavalier attitude about violating the constitution. She feels that certain people must be silenced. She feels the Second Amendment doesn't apply. Then she uses the "it's not absolute" argument.

Watch at 1:05. I want them silenced
"I have no issue with it at all. I want them shut down, I want them silenced, I want them muted."

a reply to: ColeYounger2
Say you love adore and worship Mao, Stalin, Castro, Mugabe, Amin, without actually saying it.

Spence v. Washington would agree with Rep. Goldman. Who would have thought that the actual lawyer would know the law best?

originally posted by: arcticshuffle
a reply to: ColeYounger2
Say you love adore and worship Mao, Stalin, Castro, Mugabe, Amin, without actually saying it.

Just to be clear, you're saying the dems love those guys, right?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
Spence v. Washington would agree with Rep. Goldman. Who would have thought that the actual lawyer would know the law best?

If you're talking about the hippy war protestor in Seattle, that was an interesting case.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

You believe in God, you believe in the Family, you believe in your history, you believe in your ancestors, you believe in your Freedom, you believe in your Rights, you believe in your wife and in your children, you believe...
Leave it. You get canceled in real time everywhere, everywhere, everywhere.....even here.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Unfortunately he's right; as long as politicians exist, no Right is absolute.

They will do everything in their power to curtail them and spit in your face with a smirk while they do it.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

It's the case that established the Spence test. A test still used by the courts today to determine whether something is protected by the First Amendment.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

If you control what people say, you can control how people think.

Look at illegal aliens. . . to illegal migrants. . . to migrants. . . to newcomers. . . .

They managed to sweep away all the social media censoring that actually had gov agency people demanding posts be taken down. Real 1st Amendment violations. They can get away with anything and chip away. ☠️

Until Congress agrees to modify the 1st amendment and define exactly what its limitations are and codify those limitations within the framing of the united states constitution, the 1st amendment is in fact absolute.

Of course they do now. When it is too good for their advantage to ignore it they do. But the next time they think it was being slammed by anyone not a commie, then they are ready to have Civil War.

The left are proven idiots. They may NEVER recover.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Unfortunately he's right; as long as politicians exist, no Right is absolute.

They will do everything in their power to curtail them and spit in your face with a smirk while they do it.

They will surely cause their own death if they go down that path right there. The normies will come out like nothing they have ever imagined. Right now the normies are voting Trump and the commies are in panic mode!!!!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Until Congress agrees to modify the 1st amendment and define exactly what its limitations are and codify those limitations within the framing of the united states constitution, the 1st amendment is in fact absolute.

Very good comment here Tzar!

Framing it in the COTUS or it gets kicked. They meant for me and you to be able to call them dirty names because the King wouldn't let anyone byatch about him in that day. If you spoke your mind, they would hang you. Speaking your mind freely was decided more important over hanging someone for doing it.

If the 1st Amendment is truly absolute, then you all disagree with the banning of certain books in public libraries, the banning of drag shows, and the banning of revenge porn and banning of pornography in public and or the banning of Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or anything some of the local folks find repulsive, offensive or inciteful?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If the 1st Amendment is truly absolute, then you all disagree with the banning of certain books in public libraries, the banning of drag shows, and the banning of revenge porn and banning of pornography in public and or the banning of Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or anything some of the local folks find repulsive, offensive or inciteful?

Nope that doesn't count since that proves by the acts of planting those particular books in schools, that those doing it are doing to pervert people, thus society.
So your lie doesn't work perv. Shoving that smut towards kids is called pedo inspired grooming. You should know all about it.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So, the 1st Amendment isn't absolute when it comes to what you think is perverted. Got it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If it infringes upon the rights of others, then it is not a right.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

maybe you see six of one, half a dozen of the other 😀

literal isn't always literal either