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

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Interesting. I always thought showing your kids my bare butt was protected. At least theres certainly a demograohic that thinks so. Maybe it allows for children tocread books about performing oral sex on old men? Libs think so! Does it also apply to dissent? Because that's what liberals have done, and continue to do. Pick a lane.

Dissent for the purpose of righting wrongs and making something better ….. terrific.

Dissent to fight for ending the protection of children from predators…. Garbage idea by garbage people.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

You're trying to affirm a conclusion from a negative premise

Isn't that exactly what the OP is trying to do?

No, my OP is providing PROOF that dems want to monitor and regulate speech, thereby violating the Constitution. Obama trapped himself in his own twisted speech.
He said the banning of books in grade schools was "profoundly misguided", then he turned right around and said that social media platforms needed to be monitored and regulated, because misinformation was threatening democracy.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Yeah, like Obama was some kind of effing genius and knew whats right for everyone...

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Comparing a library to social media is like comparing a restaurant to a landfill.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

The only loop here is that all logic comes back to the truth, that the 1st Amendment isn't absolute in our society.

None of the amendments / rights is absolute for the purpose of committing crimes or making the world a nastier place.
Does this strike you as some sort of clever discovery on your part ?
This has been acknowledged since the things were written.
What’s absolute is that the govt is prohibited from stopping the legal, non-destructive expression of them, by official process or policy.
This is not rocket science.
Unless of course your navel gazing and obtuseness is literally to help the gray area, of illegal use of the rights.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Your OP is based on the premise that the 1st Amendment is absolute and your outrage at Democrats endorsing censorship.

We can argue all day long about when, why and how our government should and shouldn't appropriately limit our 1st Amendment rights, but first we have to agree that the government can and does limit them.

For example, in some countries, religiously based honor killings are legal, they aren't legal in the USA, because the 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

originally posted by: NightFlight
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Yeah, like Obama was some kind of effing genius and knew whats right for everyone...

Yes...Barry thinks he's always the smartest one in the room.
How can someone be so full of sh!t?

Whenever I see a video clip of him,
I picture aused car lot in the background.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Comparing a library to social media is like comparing a restaurant to a landfill.

Well, the birds and bugs and rats are probably thinking “I love this restaurant” down at the old landfill.

But yeah, it is kind of silly like claiming the 2nd only meant that we could have a blunderbuss for the next 1000 years.

I think we can all agree that it is not free speech to kill someone, correct?

There are laws against that.


There are also laws against exposing children to porn.

This is just an excuse to control what we can say.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ColeYounger2

Your OP is based on the premise that the 1st Amendment is absolute and your outrage at Democrats endorsing censorship.

We can argue all day long about when, why and how our government should and shouldn't appropriately limit our 1st Amendment rights, but first we have to agree that the government can and does limit them.

For example, in some countries, religiously based honor killings are legal, they aren't legal in the USA, because the 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

And yet again, as always, your effort to mine the obtuse areas ….. equating honor killings and kiddie porn with my right to disagree with communism, Islam, trans, blm ….. is disingenuous and definitely not making the world any better.
It is however always slanted toward helping your agenda. And that’s what lots of people tell you in every thread.

No amendments are absolute.

Don't believe me, look at the 18th Amendment.

Even Jefferson wanted us to change it up every 20 years.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think we can all agree that it is not free speech to kill someone, correct?

Correct. The right to kill someone, for blasphemy, adultery, or any other biblical death penalty infraction, isn't a free speech issue. It's a freedom of religion issue, also a 1st Amendment right.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your OP is based on the premise that the 1st Amendment is absolute and your outrage at Democrats endorsing censorship.

No, it's not. My outrage is over the the way the dems want to regulate speech and then use the "it's not absolute" excuse to justify their crimes. I have read extensively about Supreme Court cases where the content of speech and the means whereby that speech is expressed were reviewed. These cases can be discussed till the cows come home. That's NOT the issue.

You say that the dems are "endorsing" censorship. They're not just endorsing it. They're doing it, and they influenced the 2020 election by doing it. They colluded with Twitter and Facebook to hide the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. They colluded with big tech to smear Trump. They tried to smear and discredit respected journalists.

When a journalist exposed the Twitter collusion, they sent the IRS to his house.

It's not even debatable. I have three words for anyone who doesn't agree that the dems are advocating censorship:

Disinformation
Governance
Board

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Infringing on someone else's rights, isn't a right.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Infringing on someone else's rights, isn't a right.

Like voting on a woman's right to her body?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Infringing on someone else's rights, isn't a right.

Like voting on a woman's right to her body?

My only concern is the body of the unborn child. Not the woman's.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I think you just made his case.

Democrats just plain despise they're own country these days.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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. . . .

Bad example.

Aliens? Really?
It was the wrong word in the first place. Migrants is the correct one.

Can you find me the percentage of US citizens with grand, grand grand, grand grand grand and so on fathers and mothers who haven't come from somewhere else.

See? I was right.

You want call migrants as aliens.
It was the wrong word to be used and as time passes it has taken another meaning with the evolution of the language.

I am sure you have been watching the X-Files and you know better.

originally posted by: Opossum19
Democrats just plain despise they're own country these days.

You know your claim is coming from your own brain.

Not from a Democrat.