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

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?

Yup.

It should be a battle of ideas. Ban no books. Period.

If you don't like them, don't read them. And don't allow your children to read them. Parents have that right.

Finally, revenge porn is a strawman and a red herring and has no place in this discussion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So, you're saying that minors don't have a 1st Amendment right to read what they want, look at the art that want, listen to the music that they want, or otherwise self-express as they want?

Yes. Anything else is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent.

Kids under 16 do not yet have the emotional or mental maturity to make certain informed decisions for themselves. Proven science.

Get used to it. Or not - your belief is not required.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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.

No.

Legal migrants are just migrants.

Illegal aliens are, illegal aliens.

Once again, we see the left trying to determine how people should be speaking.

You've proven my point once again.

You have a strange view on what proof means but anyway.

Aliens refers to something else in our times.
(You should watch the X-Files if you haven't)

There are legal and illegal migrants according to the law.

Perhaps you should actually read American law before pretending you know anything about it.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Cornell Law School Linky

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;

Cornell Law School Linky

I could go on all day...

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So, you're saying that minors don't have a 1st Amendment right to read what they want, look at the art that want, listen to the music that they want, or otherwise self-express as they want?

Yes. Anything else is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent.

Kids under 16 do not yet have the emotional or mental maturity to make certain informed decisions for themselves. Proven science.

Get used to it. Or not - your belief is not required.

I agree with you. Minors don't have full 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So, you're saying that minors don't have a 1st Amendment right to read what they want, look at the art that want, listen to the music that they want, or otherwise self-express as they want?

Yes. Anything else is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent.

Kids under 16 do not yet have the emotional or mental maturity to make certain informed decisions for themselves. Proven science.

Get used to it. Or not - your belief is not required.

I agree with you. Minors don't have full 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

Well, what do you know? We agree on something.

Cool!

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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.

No.

Legal migrants are just migrants.

Illegal aliens are, illegal aliens.

Once again, we see the left trying to determine how people should be speaking.

You've proven my point once again.

You have a strange view on what proof means but anyway.

Aliens refers to something else in our times.
(You should watch the X-Files if you haven't)

There are legal and illegal migrants according to the law.

Perhaps you should actually read American law before pretending you know anything about it.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Cornell Law School Linky

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law;

Cornell Law School Linky

I could go on all day...

You didn't get the point.
Language evolves and the word alien is used for different purposes in our times.

So logically it has to be replaced by the use migrant as alien usually and in most cases describes an extraterrestrial entity.

On ATS there is a whole section dedicated to:

ALIENS and UFOs

It's obvious to anyone it doesn't mean migrants and UFOs but extraterrestrials and UFOs.

Language evolves and this should be reflected everywhere including the law and other aspects of every day life.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Venkuish1

Aliens refers to something else in our times. (You should watch the X-Files if you haven't) There are legal and illegal migrants according to the law.

well not exactly in this instance.

from websters,

alien 1 of 3 adjective
ˈā-lē-ən ˈāl-yən Synonyms of alien
1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange an alien environment
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign alien residents
c : exotic sense 1 alien plants
d : coming from another world : extraterrestrial alien beings an alien spaceship When it comes to knowing what alien life forms might be like, we don't have any idea.— Kate Shuster

2: differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
ideas alien to democracy

alien 2 of 3 noun
1 a : a person who is not of a particular group or place aliens seeking asylum in the U.S. In this way it came to pass that those scattered linen-weavers—emigrants from the town into the country—were to the last regarded as aliens by their rustic neighbours …— George Eliot … she whom we had deemed so … pious, at last died an alien from the church …— Delia Salter Bacon
b : a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country broadly : a foreign-born citizen
2 : extraterrestrial a movie about an invasion of Earth by monstrous aliens
3 : exotic sense 1 Russian thistle, kudzu, and other aliens
alien 1 of 3

just because you want to change how people are identified as, doesn't make what they were originally Id'd as wrong. feelz has nothing to do with that.

I don't want to change anything but I am making a simple observation based on how language has evolved and like I said above the word alien means something very different to what meant some decades ago and is used differently. Take a look at the forum here on ATS: Aliens and UFOs

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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.

No.

Legal migrants are just migrants.

Illegal aliens are, illegal aliens.

Once again, we see the left trying to determine how people should be speaking.

You've proven my point once again.

You have a strange view on what proof means but anyway.

Aliens refers to something else in our times.
(You should watch the X-Files if you haven't)

There are legal and illegal migrants according to the law.

There are migrants and illegal aliens.

I think I have an equitable compromise - how about

"Undocumented lawbreakers"?

Nope.

Illegal aliens.

Or, criminals if you prefer.

Illegal migrants you wanted to say.

And you need to be able to differentiate this from aliens and alien life in other planets.

a reply to: Venkuish1

I am making a simple observation based on how language has evolved and like I said above the word alien means something very different to what meant some decades ago and is used differently.

no it hasn't or doesn't. it means what it always has in all the sense's of the word be it a adjective, noun, or verb. the root meaning is still the same. the word as a descriptive noun for extraterrestrial beings has turned into noun as time has gone on and has not changed the original meaning which is still a common use today

the key is to, as you say in your next post is differentiate what is meant when the word alien or plural form aliens is used in a discussion about a subject.

when i say he, she or they are illegal aliens, in a discussion about people / humans entering a country illegally knowing the sense of the word as a adjective and noun which has always been the same for hundreds years or more, people know or should know, as you did, i'm are talking about people / humans not extraterrestrial beings. that it means people who are illegally in a country or place they don't belong.

when i say the the alien, aliens landed his, their ship in the town square, people know or should know that i'm talking about extraterrestrial beings from another world to the best of our knowledge.

just to change or claim a words meaning is different due to hurt feelz, woke correctness, or pandering to a base does not change the meaning or make it's use wrong. especially if the word was never intended to be offensive in the first place.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Venkuish1

I am making a simple observation based on how language has evolved and like I said above the word alien means something very different to what meant some decades ago and is used differently.

no it hasn't or doesn't. it means what it always has in all the sense's of the word be it a adjective, noun, or verb. the root meaning is still the same. the word as a descriptive noun for extraterrestrial beings has turned into noun as time has gone on and has not changed the original meaning which is still a common use today

the key is to, as you say in your next post is differentiate what is meant when the word alien or plural form aliens is used in a discussion about a subject.

when i say they are illegal aliens, in a discussion about people / humans entering a country illegally knowing the sense of the word as a adjective and noun which has always been the same for hundreds years or more, people know or should know, as you did i'm are talking about people / humans not extraterrestrial beings. that it means people who are illegally in a country or place they don't belong.

when i say the aliens landed their ship in the town square, people know or should know that i'm talking about extraterrestrial beings from another world to the best of our knowledge.

just to change or claim a words meaning is different due to hurt feelz, woke correctness, or pandering to a base does not change the meaning or make it's use wrong. especially if the word was never intended to be offensive in the first place.

There are excuses my friend.
You need to take into account how language has evolved and what 'aliens' implies in our days or how is it used. We use the word very differently and all you need to do is take a look at these forums:

Aliens and UFOs

It's not migrants and UFOs...

a reply to: Venkuish1

you need to take into account and admit your wrong and realize the word is used the same as it always has been, in common use and has also has become used in other sense's and has more than one meaning.

nothing you post will ever change that or ever will.

illegal aliens are people in a country illegally and not aliens who are of extraterrestrial origin

When Democrats say its not absolute they mean yes we can darn well censor, arrest, prosecute and detain people based on their political views. Thats what your leaders talk about, nothing else.

And then you whine about free speech when Republicans ban pedo books for todlers lol. If its not absolute in the sense your leaders think it isnt how on earth would it be absolute there?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So, you're saying that minors don't have a 1st Amendment right to read what they want, look at the art that want, listen to the music that they want, or otherwise self-express as they want?

Yes. Anything else is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent.

Kids under 16 do not yet have the emotional or mental maturity to make certain informed decisions for themselves. Proven science.

Get used to it. Or not - your belief is not required.

I agree with you. Minors don't have full 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment isn't absolute.

Sookie, I'd like to think you are just blinded by the liberal MSM you are addicted to. I hope that's the case. Because the alternative is you are cheering on the left's movement to normalize pedophilia. Children have rights, the same as adults. But adults also have the responsibility to keep kids safe, as they cannot protect themselves from adults. So when kids are in school, a place where we send our kids, thinking they are safe there, since we can't be there to protect them, we expect they will be looked after.

If you have an adult provide pornography to a child, the likely reason is that adult is a sick pervert pedo who needs a lead injection between the eyes quickly. If you are that pedo, then you require that treatment. But a child can go out and watch whatever they wish to, however they might find it. And if they do, they won't be arrested. They had the first amendment right to do it, we just have the moral obligation to protect them from it, as best we can.

So in conclusion, arguing for children to have access to porn is a sick ass way to live, and most find that bad enough to end the person doing it. Look deep in your soul and figure out what your intentions are, only you know this. And I hope you aren't the monster you appear to be.

I will admit using the word absolute is a poor choice since Democrats will abuse it as goes to show. So yes its not absolute. There are exceptions when it comes to propaganda for children and inciting violence. But when it comes to mass censoring based on political views its pretty absolute, thats exactly what that law was written for but your leaders dont think it is.

a reply to: network dude

Sookie, I'd like to think you are just blinded by the liberal MSM you are addicted to. I hope that's the case. Because the alternative is you are cheering on the left's movement to normalize pedophilia.

Get over your bad self!

All I'm doing is providing examples of how, why and when you can obviously see where the 1st Amendment is not absolute. No one is cheering pedophilia. But you should also remember that the sexual exploitation of minors only became against the law in the 1990s, after the whole Brook Shields debacles.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sookie, I'd like to think you are just blinded by the liberal MSM you are addicted to. I hope that's the case. Because the alternative is you are cheering on the left's movement to normalize pedophilia.

Get over your bad self!

All I'm doing is providing examples of how, why and when you can obviously see where the 1st Amendment is not absolute. No one is cheering pedophilia. But you should also remember that the sexual exploitation of minors only became against the law in the 1990s, after the whole Brook Shields debacles.

Here's some laws from the 80s.

'Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996'."


'Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990'."

'Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988'."

'Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986'."

'Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act of 1986'."

'Child Protection Act of 1984'."

'Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977'."

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sookie, I'd like to think you are just blinded by the liberal MSM you are addicted to. I hope that's the case. Because the alternative is you are cheering on the left's movement to normalize pedophilia.

Get over your bad self!

All I'm doing is providing examples of how, why and when you can obviously see where the 1st Amendment is not absolute. No one is cheering pedophilia. But you should also remember that the sexual exploitation of minors only became against the law in the 1990s, after the whole Brook Shields debacles.

Why does anything about sex and minors need to go immediately to pedophilia?

Are these minors not going to be sexual some day? You know -- with other minors like themselves?

I don't think ignorance is protection.

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian2
I will admit using the word absolute is a poor choice since Democrats will abuse it as goes to show.

As if ALL politicians don't use every "trick in the book".

a reply to: xuenchen

It's almost unbelievable that it took until 1977 before Congress actually made child pornography illegal. It took a lot longer to make sexual exploitation of a minor illegal.

Congress passed the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. Originally designated the Kildee-Murphy bill, it was the first piece of national legislation specifically prohibiting child pornography.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu...

Currently it's democrat politicians who swore an oath to protect and obey the constitution who never intended to do that if it didn't suit them, and we are seeing the proof of that every time they open their mouths on CNN or any of the DNC hip pocket owned MSM.

The things they do are most always violations of the constitution and their sworn oaths, so they MUST CENSOR speech that incriminates them.