Jon Stewart doesn't understand the Constitution or Bill of Rights

After my previous thread about Jon Stewart laughing at incestuous child rape in a literal way, I stopped watching the show.

However I'm bored tonight and watching it right now as I write this, about to turn it off.

The segment discussion is about the potential of the supreme court banning the sale of mature video games to children. Here's the odd part, he inferred that video games are a first amendment issue.

So let me ask you this...

How does banning a video game prevent YOU from talking?

It doesn't, corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. So in short, Jon Stewart doesn't know crap about the law, but rather is perpetuating the conspiracy of granting corporations the same rights as living humans. Which as I'm sure we can all agree, is leading to the decline of our nation.

www.reclaimdemocracy.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


2 things the check out that state the corporations have the legal rights of people, and can be defined as such.

a google search will bring up a lot more on the topic/debate.


that being said, cheers to J. Stewart for at least attempting to cool the rhetoric of this mad country with his rally for "sanity". unless one is for the mad rhetoric. in which case, ATS seems a good place to be now-a-days.

it's like a party in Mordor here with all the hate mongering.

thank goodness there are still enough lucid minds capable of intelligent debate on ATS to keep me coming back, and weeding through the vitrile.

2 cents and out.

reply to post by mryanbrown


The supreme court has recently ruled, that corporations are "people" allowing them to donate without restriction to political campaigns.

It's not simply freedom of verbal speech. The amendment was redefined to expand the word "speech" to mean freedom of "expression."
Freedom of Expression
Expression

reply to post by mythos


Right, the unlawful Supreme Court recognizes corporations have rights. The Constitution doesn't. Corporate "rights" are truly privileged regulations titled as rights. They are not truly the same.

Playing word games and using semantics, you can bend the social understanding of words so that it sounds as if they not only have "rights" but are deserving of rights.

Also as I recall, the Constitution lacks any authority to revoke or grant rights. They supersede the Constitution, it just merely protects those rights.

I saw in a Judge Napolitano video him discussing the trial of Locke.

Locke had said something in regards to...

"If the sky is blue, could an act of parliament make it green?" I'm not sure how it went, but I took from it this.

That inevitably government will become corrupt and totalitarian in nature, passing laws beyond it's scope of authority. However this still does not make the sky green.

reply to post by StinkFist


That's a good point you brought up. Even I wasn't aware it included expression. As expressing ones self is not the same as speech. But I suppose that's a much longer discussion.

But I assert that being unable to play a game does not hinder a humans right to self expression OR speech. But as the previous poster mentioned. Our supreme court doesn't recognize that corporations don't have rights, they have privileges which can be revoked or granted at any time. As profit is not essential to life (it only appears so now as we've allowed it to go this far).

Originally posted by mryanbrown
How does banning a video game prevent YOU from talking?

Do you understand the constitution or the bill of rights? Free speech protects expression in many forms. This is really kind of an old concept. That fact that you would take the time to attack comedy central about their knowledge of the constitution and still get it wrong makes me weep for ATS.

I look forward to your next thread "Towlie does not know what the Civil War was really about" and maybe "Hypnotoad fails civics test"

reply to post by mryanbrown


So let me try and get this straight. To support your argument that Jon Stewart doesn't understand the Bill of Rights is to claim that the Supreme Court is unlawful simply because a ruling they have made doesn't support your argument. Secondly if you invalidate the supreme court as being unlawful, you basically invalidate the entire U.S. legal system and at that point it really doesn't matter what Jon Stewart thinks about the first amendment, becuase without the court system, the first amendment doesn't mean Jack. Someone doesn't understand how the Bill of Rights works or how the government in general works.. but I myself will give Jon a pass.

I would like to close by saying, I really don't understand where all of the Jon Stewart hate is coming from.... he just points out how illogical people can be sometimes and the people turn around and illogically attack him.

reply to post by mryanbrown

Right, the unlawful Supreme Court ....

???? "unlawful"?

Oh, you mean Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia?

No, they aren't "unlawful"....just incredibly biased. Might wanna check on that particular ruling, and the make up of the Court at that time, and note just how far to the Right it swings. (And whether there are certain --- *gasp*--- outside influences at work, in favor of "big business"?) So, complaining about the right-leaning Court? OK With ya there!!

Oh, found an article on the topic. January. This year. Yup! Thomas and Scalia, and three others...

(link): www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by mryanbrown


It's not the corporation that is being protected, necessarily when the first amendment is applied to those games. The people who designed the games are fighting for the title of "artist." As well they should too, whether you or I find the particular medium or its content appealing or do not.

Are you old enough to remember Looney Tunes? The original ones? How about old Tom and Jerry? They were quite violent. Animation is art, right? Why not this as well?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I like that by my stating corporations have no rights. I'm somehow ignorant to the Constitution. Am I discussing living people here? Don't think so. And I'm pretty sure corporations aren't living beings deserving of rights.

Just because you have the right to freedom of speech, doesn't mean your company does or should. Rather it shouldn't. Which is why they were never granted rights. Corporations pre-dated America, they were aware of them, if they wanted to afford them rights it would have been written so.

But it's good to see I offended some Jon Stewart fans.


EDIT: @ StinkFist. No one is denying them the arists the ability to create. They're merely limiting who may purchase their art. Should children be capable of buying Playboy if it were a videogame? If not, then by the mentality of those who disagree with me, you are denying Playboy the freedom of expression.

The irony of people criticizing someone for not knowing the Constitution but then showing their own ignorance of that same Constitution!

Yes, Video Games are considered "Art" both legally and Constitutionally. As such, they *DO* fall under the domain of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protecting Freedom of Expression. Although called the Freedom of Speech, of the Press, of Association, of Assembly and Petition, it has been perhaps the most frequently heard issue before the Supreme Court that has time and time again clarified the protections of the First Amendment to all forms of Expression, non-verbal as well as verbal, and even now includes the assumed protections of Freedom of Information, the Right to Knowledge (to seek it, receive it, and impart it), and the Right to Privacy.

That which violates obscenity is one of the rare provisions that are not protected under the First Amendment. However obscenity is highly subjective, often applied arbitrarily, are vague, and as such these Obscenity Laws are often proven to be dubious, unenforceable, legally void, and Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court currently measures Obscenity by the Miller Test. In order to be considered "obscene" and not protected by the First Amendment, all three rules of the Miller Test must be proven. Non-pornographic materials could not possibly satisfy a single rule of the Miller Test, let alone all three! As such, unless a Video Game explicitly depicts bestiality or pedophilia, it cannot be excluded from the protections accorded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution..

Corporate Personhood is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is not a recent decision. This was established in a Court precedent predating the actual drafting of the Amendment. It was clarified and ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 that the "personhood" provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment extended to Corporations.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
"Hypnotoad fails civics test"

I dare say, it's impossible for the hypnotoad to fail anything. Ever.

All hail hypnotoad!

Onto the OP: "Liberals don't understand the constitution like I do, that makes them wrong based on my standards."

reply to post by fraterormus


People keep suggesting I'm ignorant to the same claims I make, yet no one has actually responded to the actual individual issues or questions I've presented.

More importantly as I've asked and will again reiterate.

1. How does restricting a video game limit YOUR 1st amendment protected rights.
2. Where is the government authorized to grant rights.
3. If Playboy were to make a sexual video game, would denying them the right to sell it to minors deny them their 1st amendment right?

Setting age-restrictions is not a 1st amendment issue.

But please, all of you who wish to dissent against my statements. Please disregard the above questions yet again. And continue your flaming.

After reading about the Supreme Court case and some of the relevant articles that are around, and the different posts, there are a few questions that should be asked.
When should a parent step in and be a parent, monitoring and being informed on what their child is reading, or looking at on the computer, watching on TV and playing of a video games? The state for all of the good it is trying to do, is over stepping those bounds into the arena of personal life, where it should not. Parents are responsible for what their child watches, eats, sleeps, drinks, and plays. Many parents tend to give their children computers and these video game consoles as part of gifts, yet do they monitor what is in the content. There have always been arguments for and against the different media as to what is age appropriate. There are many forms of violence that a child will come across, in different media, from books, to magazines, movies, television and video games. They say these games are violent and lead to violent behavior, yet if you look at a lot of the different cartoons, and especially those that are oriented towards children, most if not all of the very popular and highly rated ones, have some for of violence in one way or another, and a lot of the older cartoons and children’s shows also have high amounts of violence.
In one sense the video gaming industry creates an art form through the use of computer programming and designs. But to ban the sale to minors, will that stop a child from getting a hold of that video game? The reality is no, it will not. Children for the longest time have been figuring out how to get the age restricted products that they are not allowed to have, be it either from their parents or through friends and family. Consider this, they ban the sale of video games in the state of California, what is to stop a family from sending a copy to the child from another state? Is the state going to go into every home and inspect, taking this one step farther than what should be permitted? Is the state now to dare to say how we should live, what we can and can not watch, read or even what video games we may own and play? This is a door that should have never been opened in the first place, where a simple matter of cooperation between the industry and government, along with the voluntary changes would have sufficed.
Now the in one of the posts, the recent supreme court decision was made, where it stated that a Corporation has the freedom of speech as if it were a living person and many people are up in arms about that. This case stemmed where a company wanted to show a film on TV about Hillary Clinton and an injunction was set as it was days before the election, and proceeded to go up to the Supreme Court of the US. The justices were correct in the ruling that a corporation does have the freedom of speech and expression, to include making those that are political. If they had ruled against it, stating that it did not have that right, then it would affect all of the elections from that point on. It would limit political speech on such a large scale, to include TV, Radio and newspapers all around from having the ability to air anything during an election year, as it could be construed that those were violating the law. Think about it, you have a candidate with a lot of money who books air time on all of the TV networks in one local area, and the other candidate did not. The candidate who did not have the money, could under the Supreme court ruling, sue the other one for violating the law and thus potentially force them from running. Further more, what about the big names that are associated with some businesses, they too could have their freedom of speech curtailed. The best example of that would be Bill Gates, CEO and founder of Apple computers. If the Supreme court had ruled that a corporation did not have the freedom of speech, then it would have limited his ability to speak or get involved in politics. Many people when they see Bill Gates, the first thing that is thought of is Apple computers, thus he would be in violation of the law, all cause he is associated with a large corporation.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by fraterormus

 

People keep suggesting I'm ignorant to the same claims I make, yet no one has actually responded to the actual individual issues or questions I've presented.

More importantly as I've asked and will again reiterate.

1. How does restricting a video game limit YOUR 1st amendment protected rights.

It restricts the protected rights of the writers and programmers of the work.

2. Where is the government authorized to grant rights.

You're going to absolutely disagree with me when I say this; the constitution grants the right. The government enforces it.

3. If Playboy were to make a sexual video game, would denying them the right to sell it to minors deny them their 1st amendment right?

I'm going to go with the idea that the expression of a videogame or film or book is at the discretion of the parents. Just as a parent can bring their child to an 'R' rated movie, they can buy their children an explicit CD or the latest violent video game.

I honestly haven't been paying much attention to the case so I'm not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of it. However, in order to avoid a 'nanny state' situation, there should be no law restricting the sale of a video game to a minor. It's not the governments job to be the parent, it's the parents job.

I'm surprise anyone watches John Stewart or Stephen colbert. To me the programs are all the same. Mock a news or political personally sarcastically. Then have the young crowd who knows nothing about politics cheer and laugh.

never mind ... carry on.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Then have the young crowd who knows nothing about politics cheer and laugh.

'Daily Show' viewers ace political quiz

Three years later:

SURVEY: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest

This year, however, the Pew Research center didn't ask for information on what people watch...so far as I could tell. Link to the quiz, not the results for anyone who might want to test their knowledge.

@links - You got me, surprise! It has nothing to do with pointing out that...

1. Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.
2. The government doesn't have the authority to grant or revoke rights.

It can however regulate commerce. Whether this resembles rights or not.

Originally posted by links234
It restricts the protected rights of the writers and programmers of the work.

So does age restricting guns, pornography, alcohol, etc.

You're going to absolutely disagree with me when I say this; the constitution grants the right. The government enforces it.

I do! The constitution can't grant something which preempts it. It merely GUARANTEES those rights by protecting them. It can not grant or revoke rights.