• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BaalChatzaf

We do not respect the First Amendment

3 posts in this topic

First let us quote the text of the first 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.

Point 1. We do not freely permit speech or writing that is grossly false AND damaging.

Libel and Slander are actionable in courts of law. Fomenting a riot or a lynch mob by acts of speech (particularly through "fighting words") will be met and put down by legal force and those who make such utterance will be punished. How about publishing military secrets? Treason and espionage anyone? As a mater of historical fact, this Republic was not 20 years old when the Alien and Sedition acts were passed. So much for Free Speech. In our dreams.

Point 2. We have many laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. How long will a religion that requires human blood sacrifice be permitted to be practiced? Not very long, I should say. Anyone who sacrifices his children to secure peace and plenty will be indicted for and convicted of murder and punished accordingly. People whose religion requires sexual congress with underage children will be punished forthwith. Recent news stories about a bat-sh*t crazy Mormon compelling sex with underage girls illustrates the point. How about a religion that requires the use of psychotropic drugs (e.g. heroine, PCP, marijuana etc.) as part of the worship?

Conclusion: Free speech is abridged routinely and the free exercise of religion simply does not happen in the United States.

Can anyone suggest a modification of the First Amendment that does not run into these contradictions?

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head hurts...

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.

Think, think really hard for just a second. You are using the 1960's definition of free... I hate the 60's. There is no way in which it is possible that "Freedom of speech" could be envisioned as having been meant to protect liable or slander considering that they are a violation of an individuals rights. As for the Alien and Sedition act it was unconstitutional.

as for sex with underage minors, again a violation of rights. making drugs illegal... unconstitutional. banning human sacrifice... I have questions of the constitutionality of banning it.

it is wrong to say that we do not respect the first amendment, the question is, is it being carried out consistently.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head hurts...

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.

Think, think really hard for just a second. You are using the 1960's definition of free... I hate the 60's. There is no way in which it is possible that "Freedom of speech" could be envisioned as having been meant to protect liable or slander considering that they are a violation of an individuals rights. As for the Alien and Sedition act it was unconstitutional.

as for sex with underage minors, again a violation of rights. making drugs illegal... unconstitutional. banning human sacrifice... I have questions of the constitutionality of banning it.

it is wrong to say that we do not respect the first amendment, the question is, is it being carried out consistently.

As to libel and slander. To get a tort judgement (they are not criminal acts) one must show actual financial damages do to false slanders and libels. Truth is absolute defense against libel and slander in U.S. law. Telling the truth in such a way as to utterly ruin someone is perfectly legal and non-recoverable.

During the Adam's administration the First Amendment was partially nullified by the Alien and Sedition act. Slander or Libel of the government was a criminal offense. During the Woodrow Wilson administration a similar law was passed punishing anyone slandering or libeling the U.S. government or its ally Great Britain in the Great War. Several people actually went to jail for what they said. During the Civil War Lincoln had newspaper editors thrown in jail without being charged, for opposing the war in print.

The entity most likely to dis the first amendment is the U.S. government.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0