Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

We do not respect the First Amendment


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:24 AM

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
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#2 equality72521

equality72521

    $$$

  • Members
  • 227 posts

Posted 01 November 2011 - 03:43 AM

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.

#3 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 01 November 2011 - 08:41 AM

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
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users