John Kerry Says First Amendment is a Major Roadblock for Government

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
John Kerry has always been a "Rules for thee but not for me" kind of hypocrite POS.

What he really needs is an old fashioned Malaysian CANING. All of our "self appointed" authorities could really use a few sessions of painful canings.

So, are you suggesting that he should be censored? Prevented from sharing his opinion?

Suffering the consequences for what you say is not censoring. He would be free to say it again and suffer again if he wants.

Yell fire in a theater and see if you don't suffer when cought. Actions and speech have consequences.

a reply to: chr0naut

"The statute does not grant the right to slander, defraud, blaspheme, or engage in treason."



The 1st Amendment does in fact give the right to slander, etc.

Other laws give others the rights to sue and penalize.

You are a mis-interpreter. 😀

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

It restricts government censorship.

QED

Was Kerry's opinion government censorship?

Nobody said Kerry can't say what he says. 🤡🤡

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
John Kerry has always been a "Rules for thee but not for me" kind of hypocrite POS.

What he really needs is an old fashioned Malaysian CANING. All of our "self appointed" authorities could really use a few sessions of painful canings.

So, are you suggesting that he should be censored? Prevented from sharing his opinion?

Absolutely NOT! Another of your not understanding, and you do also have the right not to understand as you keep pointing out.

John Kerry is always stating things that expose his totalitarian viewpoints, which are counter to American freedoms and liberties, and in so doing, opens himself up to reprimand and punishment for opposing our American way of life. He should even be considered as being an enemy combatant at this point.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
John Kerry has always been a "Rules for thee but not for me" kind of hypocrite POS.

What he really needs is an old fashioned Malaysian CANING. All of our "self appointed" authorities could really use a few sessions of painful canings.

So, are you suggesting that he should be censored? Prevented from sharing his opinion?

Suffering the consequences for what you say is not censoring. He would be free to say it again and suffer again if he wants.

Yell fire in a theater and see if you don't suffer when cought. Actuons and speech have consequences.

"Actuons" sounds like a cheesy sub-group of Transformers. Like those deceptaconsfreespeechacons!



But yelling anything in a theatre is likely to upset others.

a reply to: Annee

Yes - its called respect and personal freedom.

I also try to teach my children to say good things vs bad ones.

I also try to teach my children to respect other people's opinions... especially when they don't align with ours.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

It restricts government censorship.

QED

Was Kerry's opinion government censorship?

Nobody said Kerry can't say what he says. 🤡🤡

So, it's all an upsize of a nothingburger, the very pinnacle of right-wing molehill mountaineering?

After all, he was complaining about the 1st being a block to countering lies in social media. He wasn't even vaguely suggesting that anyone should abolish bits of the Constitution.

Not like Trump did when he suggested abolishing birthright citizenship, or when he ignored the freedom of religion clauses in his attempted 'Muslim' travel bans, or, the ultimate indicator, when he suggested suspension of the Constitution on Truth Social.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

It restricts government censorship.

QED

Was Kerry's opinion government censorship?

Nobody said Kerry can't say what he says. 🤡🤡

So, it's all an upsize of a nothingburger, the very pinnacle of right-wing molehill mountaineering?

After all, he was complaining about the 1st being a block to countering lies in social media. He wasn't even vaguely suggesting that anyone should abolish bits of the Constitution.

He's suggesting censoring. Censoring is against The 1st Amendment. 😬

Instead of understanding, you get further away from reality and continue to develop more tangents and deflections. You have the right to do that too 😀🤡

At first, I read this and I thought BULL#! based upon the "analysis" of the guy in the video. Then I read the actual transcript of what Kerry said:

But look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and they’re putting out this information, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence. So what you need, what we need, is to win the ground, win the right to govern by, hopefully, winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

I don't like Kerry. That is my own personal bias. I think what he is saying is that "news" sources which espouse a view different from his are protected by the First Amendment and he thinks that is a problem. Not much different than some of the people who believe that there should be people who ascertain what is truth and what is not and to censure those who don't speak the truth. The book 1984 was more than a cautionary tale, when it talked about the Thought Police; it was a prophecy.

United States founding fathers might well be thinking that it is long past the time to prune the Tree of Liberty.

a reply to: chr0naut

I once again fall victim of the smell checker. Thanks for pointing it out but you got the meaning.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
Question: You have a family of 5.

2 parents, 3 kids various ages (college, high school, grade school).

Do you allow everyone to say whatever they want?

You're equating government to parental status.

Logical fail.

I’m equating a group of various thoughts and ages.

Try the simplicity.

Simplicity.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why would you think I am not aware of the first amendment?

I gave you a simplified scenario.

What do you think this small group of various ages would be like if everyone said whatever they felt like?

They’d be peachy and get along just great.

It’s when one of those 5 get a friend from the same demographic that sh!t goes sideways 😂

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

It restricts government censorship.

QED

Was Kerry's opinion government censorship?

Nobody said Kerry can't say what he says. 🤡🤡

So, it's all an upsize of a nothingburger, the very pinnacle of right-wing molehill mountaineering?

After all, he was complaining about the 1st being a block to countering lies in social media. He wasn't even vaguely suggesting that anyone should abolish bits of the Constitution.

He's suggesting censoring. Censoring is against The 1st Amendment. 😬

Instead of understanding, you get further away from reality and continue to develop more tangents and deflections. You have the right to do that too 😀🤡

If you read or watch his whole speech, he wasn't suggesting censoring. On the contrary, he was suggesting the creation of genuinely trustable fact checkers, and a process of reliably authenticating the stuff on social media. A situation where truth would overcome whatever happens to be the loudest lie.

At no stage does he suggest that the government should censor anything.

The OP was the prime example of someone spinning an untruth. The very reason reliable fact checking is necessary.

a reply to: chr0naut

Now you're back to tangents and loon delusions that have been proven false, and still have nothing to do with John Kerry and his loonacies.

Where are you learning these tactics? 🔐


Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continue the behavior instead of altering course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.

a reply to: chr0naut

After all, he was complaining about the 1st being a block to countering lies in social media

You mean countering the lies like the Russia collusion ?
Or maybe the pee tapes ?
Or maybe that time all those intelligence officials signed a letter saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation ?
How about the one where every Democrat controlled network claimed there was nothing wrong with Joe Biden ?
Wanna talk about the Biden administration, Google and Twitter conspired to limit the speech of Conservatives ?

You keep saying the Right is authoritarian but you don't want to hold the Left to the same standard.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

It restricts government censorship.

QED

Was Kerry's opinion government censorship?

Nobody said Kerry can't say what he says. 🤡🤡

So, it's all an upsize of a nothingburger, the very pinnacle of right-wing molehill mountaineering?

After all, he was complaining about the 1st being a block to countering lies in social media. He wasn't even vaguely suggesting that anyone should abolish bits of the Constitution.

He's suggesting censoring. Censoring is against The 1st Amendment. 😬

Instead of understanding, you get further away from reality and continue to develop more tangents and deflections. You have the right to do that too 😀🤡

If you read or watch his whole speech, he wasn't suggesting censoring. On the contrary, he was suggesting the creation of genuinely trustable fact checkers, and a process of reliably authenticating the stuff on social media. A situation where truth would overcome whatever happens to be the loudest lie.

At no stage does he suggest that the government should censor anything.

The OP was the prime example of someone spinning an untruth. The very reason reliable fact checking is necessary.

Kerry's actual quote is right there in the OP. And he did not say anything you say he said did he. lol lol lol nice try so now go back to your next tangent and control you steam and anger. 🤣😀 You have rights under The 1st, so you can talk to yourself freely as much as you want.

Kerry and the government and their media lapdogs are upset that social media and the internet have allowed us little people the opportunity and ability to have a seat at the table.

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee
Question: You have a family of 5.

2 parents, 3 kids various ages (college, high school, grade school).

Do you allow everyone to say whatever they want?

You're equating government to parental status.

Logical fail.

I’m equating a group of various thoughts and ages.

Try the simplicity.

Simplicity.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why would you think I am not aware of the first amendment?

I gave you a simplified scenario.

What do you think this small group of various ages would be like if everyone said whatever they felt like?

They’d be peachy and get along just great.

It’s when one of those 5 get a friend from the same demographic that sh!t goes sideways 😂

My 2 daughters were as opposite as night and day. Still are.

Point is you would make rules (or most people would) — for your own little nucleus.

For me Free (gov) speech means you can have an opinion on how the government is run. How it affects you, your family, and livelihood.

I don’t agree it’s a complete free-for-all — as same — you would not allow within your own nucleus/family.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

"The statute does not grant the right to slander, defraud, blaspheme, or engage in treason."

The 1st Amendment does in fact give the right to slander, etc.

How lovely (but it doesn't, really).

Other laws give others the rights to sue and penalize.

That was what I said. They existed in Common Law prior to the existence of the USA. Common Law reflects the '10 Commandment' laws of the Bible (which pre-existed Common Law).

You are a mis-interpreter. 😀

You said that Kerry mentioned that he wanted the government to censor stuff. He didn't.

You said that the 1st Amendment gives people the right to slander. It doesn't.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Kerry and the government and their media lapdogs are upset that social media and the internet have allowed us little people the opportunity and ability to have a seat at the table.

... along with the lizzid peeple, the greys, cannibalistic satanist pedo's, and those demonic shadow people.

No, really!!!

LOL.

a reply to: chr0naut

lol

Never thought freedom would piss off so many people.