We need common sense restrictions on the 1st amendment.

reply to post by angrysniper


Nice.
This could be applied to the 3rd Amendment as well, after all what better way to protect the American people than to have Soldier's (military personnel) quartered in every house. No more need for personal home protection.

Originally posted by bjax9er
I was trying to get this point across yesterday, but it just flew right over the commies heads.

I mean the democrats.

If we can restrict the second amendment, then we can restrict all NATURAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

Why do people think the constitution is necessary for human rights? My country is amongst the freest in the world and we don't have an equivalent. It seems really unnecessary to me, all it seems to do is cloud judgement because no one must corrupt or violate the constitution.

reply to post by angrysniper


Firstly, good topic about an issue facing us all, along with a unique way to state it! S&F

Secondly, common sense is not all that common.

I believe we do need to do something, but amending our constitution to place restrictions upon the first amendment should not be done. It would ultimately be construed to impose those same restrictions upon all forms of media we currently enjoy. ATS included.

Our founding fathers knew that without this freedom, we would be silenced and left in the dark from all forms knowledge of truth. Certainly, there are those irresponsible reporters who waste their talents to collect a paycheck and are more than willing to do so. If the restrictions were to be placed upon the corporations and owners of those media outlets, preventing them from controlling the type of media we see, it might all change for the better. Real journalists and reporters would have more abilities to report the news in ways which actually explain the facts known instead of being silenced by corporate rule and decision making policies.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." -- Richard Salant, the former President of CBS News.

This ability to decide the what, how, who, when and where of our news, needs to stop. This change, should produce a healthy environment where real reporting could occur. Also, having an informed populace needs to become the norm, rather than the exception.

Placing a waiting period on news, or a background check is simply more control against the dissemination of information and contradicts the first amendment completely. Yes, our forefathers had no idea we would reach such technological advancements, but restricting the reporting of information to specific time intervals or making information available to those who are capable of passing a background check would evolve into a system; where specific information is once again only made available to a select few.

It is our responsibility as parents to police our own. Our children are, or they should be, a direct reflection of our daily input. It is a topic for another thread, but surmise to say, that without our own vigilance, our children will inevitably do as they please. They are children and must be guided with a steady hand and warm heart.

Our media outlets have devolved from their intended purpose of keeping the populace abreast of the world around them, to the greatest form of social engineering experiment used for control. So, while I believe change must occur to free our current system of expression from the chains of the few into the hands of reporters and journalists, amending our constitution by placing restrictions is not the way.

reply to post by prysmatyk


You are clueless

Read the op again, carefully.

"Rights" cannot be "restricted" or in any way messed with, that's why they are "rights" and not "priveleges" or "allowances". Now, the government or any private entity can TRY to abridge your rights, but they cannot do so from a legitimate standing. It all depends on what you are willing to give up and stand up for. When the government gets into the business of eroding or abridging rights, it is operating in the realm of pure force. Most of the time there's nothing you can do when the government engages in violence against you because they have lots of men in special clothing who are willing and eager to bash your head in upon orders from some dude in a hat. But that's pure criminality, and there's not much we can do about it short of something that virtually no one is willing to do (yet?).

That said, we don't have to cede the language to them. We can insist on calling them out, on using proper, regular terms for things, and making sure that the men who engage in such activities are made to stand up for doing so (meaning that we do not allow them to lie to us, to use Orwellian language on us, and to hide what they are doing behind simple deception and obfuscation).

reply to post by angrysniper


Restriction and common sense are pretty much in opposition. A free person does not desire restrictions. He desires defense and freedom in his own hands.

reply to post by bjax9er


I agree with the OP and should have stated I understood the cynicism and sarcasm before posting my statements to the contrary. My apologies for not being clear.

Thanks for pointing that out. As originally stated, common sense is not that common and I am to be placed into that circle from time to time as well.

No, we need the very opposite of "common sense". The common person (including myself) knows nothings about guns, what type of guns there are, how they are used, who is likely to use them for sport, who is likely to use them for other purposes (both good and ill). The common person would have no clue how to write proper legislation, codes, and laws on the appropriate steps and restrictions needed for a person to attain a gun. I don't want a common man touching any legislation with no more than a half-&^% opinion and scant knowledge on either guns technics, gun sale statistics, and human/criminal psychology/psychiatry/therapy. Or else were just going to end up with a bunch of laws that benefit nobody (and nothing) other than gun lobbiest, political talking points, and anything and everything but the public. This type of legislation will be everything but simple---it will no doubt be complex, sticky and variable based on a state-by-state and local laws and demographics. I don't want a common man touching this, I want thoughtful, critically-thinking, informed and experienced people on this. Period. I think this country has had enough amateur hour from D.C---not matter what party of affiliation.

-Ghoster

Originally posted by angrysniper
I propose sensible, common sense restrictions on the First Amendment!

The modern media has proven time and time again it can not be trusted with the "assault" resource they have today. Satellite trucks, video phones and the internet. Not to mention social media and email. Really, the founders of our great country NEVER could have imagined the speed at which information now travels. They were living in a time of quills, ink wells and Gutenberg presses.

How many parents need to be given false hope or experience false grieving because news agencies try to out gun the others? This recklessness needs to be curtailed!

I think that responsible reporters and media outlets would agree, something needs to be done before more reputations are ruined. Before more families experience unfounded grief. I propose that during a major story, reporting be limited to 5 mins every 3 hrs.

This only makes sense. It gives the outlets time to check facts. It limits the exposure of the evil doer and will reduce copycat events. It will reduce the PTSD felt by the innocent bystanders across the nation who seem to be glued to the news stations.

I think we can all agree, the 1st amendment has over stepped the intentions of our founders.

Satellite technology developed by our military to communicate to military forces across the world is now used - without restriction - by private entities to communicate any message they desire. What will it take to get people to wake up!

Only a zealous idiot would believe the Founding Fathers ever intended for the First Amendment to protect the kind of misinformation and libel this technology makes possible.

Now I'm not saying we should do away with the 1st amendment entirely, but we need reasonable.. common sense restrictions. If you want to own books, you can. You just need to be part of a reading club, and keep them stored at an approved library facility.

We need a 7-day waiting period on news reports. Give people time to cool off (or at least get the facts right) before publishing a story.

Reporting on violent crimes should be limited to between the hours of 6 pm and 10 pm and warnings should proceed the story to ensure there is an adult in the room. Access to their websites should require a background check and a 10 day waiting period!

I say that we need to control all forms of media other than the manual printing press and hand written documents. It just makes sense since that's all that was available when they wrote the first amendment, right?

edit on 19-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)

We just need to enforce the laws already on the books.

Like Libel and Slander.

Could you imagine what a ghost town ATS would be if slander and libel were prosecuted for every published post on the internet?

We need no restrictions on the first, but we do need to tear down monopolist systems which allow a few media conglomerates to control public opinion etc..

The answer is to preserve the constitution and create a more broad media base. The voice of America which all MSM claims to be should not be for sale or monopolised etc..

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
We need no restrictions on the first, but we do need to tear down monopolist systems which allow a few media conglomerates to control public opinion etc..

The answer is to preserve the constitution and create a more broad media base. The voice of America which all MSM claims to be should not be for sale or monopolised etc..

edit on 20-12-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

First of all, there is no monopoly in the media. There are literally hundreds of news outlets in our country. Secondly, what you are asking for is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as the government does not have the authority to dictate to a free media, and should not. If you want to change your world, turn off the MSM. No one is forcing you to watch.

I certainly don't.

reply to post by angrysniper


I was wondering when the attack on the 1st would begin. Attack one amendment with another. That way their is a win on one or two fronts. People are falling for it. oh well.

Obamas job is to take our freedoms. working as intended.

reply to post by votan


YOU TELL THEM!!!!

WE MUST NOT GIVE UP OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO COMMIT FRAUD!!!!

PUNISH PEOIPLE WHO TRUST!!!

tHEY R STOOPID

reply to post by angrysniper


Not too long ago, it was common sense that the earth is flat.
Not too long ago, it was common sense that non-white were inferior sub-human species
Not too long ago, it was common sense not to let women vote
etc...

Who defines 'common sense' ?

reply to post by angrysniper
Every time I hear another "Closet Genius" talking about doing this or that to or with our Constitution my blood runs cold and I have to lean over and spit in the trash can. The Media, the Government, the Corporations, our Constitutions was written to protect living, breathing American Citizens from them; I swore and oath to defend and protect that Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic....period. Moreover, someone with a username "AngrySniper" is welcome to step up and be counted for what they espouse, although I doubt anyone wants IT on their shoe.

When all the dust has settled, and all the Megalomaniac individuals exposed for what they are, and the web of deceit has been exposed, we will emerge with our Freedoms entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers. Some will have to sacrifice even their lives in the course of doing so, but we will emerge from the scheming vile traitorous attempts intact. History will chronicle this as a difficult time for the US, but Liberty will prevail along with our Constitution in it's original form and entirety ultimately.
People are not stupid, it's the media and their individuals who would like you to form an opinion that people are stupid. Once exposed to the Truth by print or word of mouth, it can not be unlearned or unheard.
Just remember....... politicians are transient, and their influence transient.

and they must submit to a sanity test, which would have basic criteria for passing, such as:

-the inability to lie, exaggerate or misconstrue
-the inability to blame innocents for crimes, as a pretext of war
-the inability to use race, gender, religion (or the lack thereof) or financial bracket as rationale for attacks, incarcerations, deprivations or enslavement
(hey this could get good!)
-the inability to say it's okay to hurt those kids, but not these kids.
(i'm on a roll!)
-the inability to pretend everything's hunky dorey while secretly planning to murder large groups of people on flimsy, racist, bigoted, half-baked, fake forms of democracy
(i'm sure there's more)

reply to post by angrysniper


clever, i like it...too bad it couldn't be on the front page of the NEW YORK TIMES.
hope you don't mind if i copy it, and send it some people i know

Originally posted by loOranks
reply to post by angrysniper

 

Not too long ago, it was common sense that the earth is flat.
Not too long ago, it was common sense that non-white were inferior sub-human species
Not too long ago, it was common sense not to let women vote
etc...

Who defines 'common sense' ?

and now it's common sense that white people are devils, and
they all live in the hills of south, have no education, low IQs,
are all racists and bigots, all are religious, have the same
religion and still lynch black people in the middle of the night.
they also all have large amounts of guns.
oh and their women folk are all whores and can be indiscriminately
raped, in perpetuity. and if the raping stops, you must reinvigorate
the hatred by reminding black people FOREVER, about slavery,
and blame all white people everywhere, for every bad thing ever
done, and don't mention the bad stuff anybody else does (that's the
important part to really drive home the common sense).

I would like to point out that the founding fathers made this the first for a reason. Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our republic and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the law as written. The problem is that we "interpret" and combined with the lack of morals of the citizens of our country we have destroyed the concept completely. Instead of curing our problems by fixing the people we keep whittling away at the laws that make us free and one day were going to wake up and find we no longer have a Constitution or a way to defend ourselves from the people who are enslaving us.