House Democrats Attack 1st Amendment Rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MIDutch

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,421
3,383
67
Detroit
✟75,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
And why should not the same charge be assessed against CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, and others for shouting for 4 years about Russian collusion?
IIRC almost everyone in trump's orbit was talking to the Russians. The defense was that it wasn't that they were opposed to colluding with the Russians, it was that they were too INCOMPETENT to be successful at it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But it's more than that. It's the totalitarian impulse in action, irrespective of political affiliation. Because this is a horrifying example of an attempt to suppress free speech, I would hope that we'll hear from some Democratic leaders who will say it's not a good idea.

They'd better step up pretty quick and pull the party closer to the center or the fat lady is going to be singing soon.
 
Upvote 0

MIDutch

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,421
3,383
67
Detroit
✟75,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I think the issue is free speech.

“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.”

It looks to me that a couple of Reps are wanting to violate this amendment, either directly or indirectly.
Incorrect. You are still as free as ever to say whatever stupid thing you want to.

Hence people can still say "I'm going to kill Nancy Pelosi". OTOH the First Amendment doesn't get you out of possibly getting a night in the slammer for saying it.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
IIRC almost everyone in trump's orbit was talking to the Russians.
Oh yeh. One of those "conspirators" passed a few words of greeting with the Russian representative at a cocktail party or reception for diplomats--exactly what his job called for him to do.

Forty million wasted dollars later, the conspiracy theorists still won't admit what even their own 'point man,' Bob Mueller, had to admit--there was nothing to the alleged conspiracy.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,546
6,064
64
✟337,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
As if Democrats are the only ones guilty of this. "conservatives" only wanting to listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, Coulter, Alex Jones, etc. gave us the trainwreck that is trump.

We are not the ones seeking to shut down the other sides speech.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,185
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect. You are still as free as ever to say whatever stupid thing you want to.

Hence people can still say "I'm going to kill Nancy Pelosi". OTOH the First Amendment doesn't get you out of possibly getting a night in the slammer for saying it.
Free speech goes hand and hand with freedom of the press. It’s right there in the amendment.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Site Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The National Enquirer is a more reliable news source than Newsmax. Fox News isn't too far behind.
I prefer Weekly World News, the "World's Only Reliable News".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Guinan

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2020
1,071
1,811
Texas
✟50,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the issue is free speech.

“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.”

It looks to me that a couple of Reps are wanting to violate this amendment, either directly or indirectly.

Freedom of speech isn't absolute. Free speech has limitations, such as "to incite actions that would harm others" (source). Freedom of speech certainly has many limitations here on CF, for example.

Permissible Restrictions On Expression

Freedom of Speech, What it is and what isn't
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,185
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Guinan

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2020
1,071
1,811
Texas
✟50,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Free speech goes hand and have with freedom of the press. It’s right there in the amendment.

And there are specific limitations on freedom of the press as well.

Such as...

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit inappropriate contentography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child inappropriate contentography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Source: Freedom of Speech and the Press. More restrictions are included in the document.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,546
6,064
64
✟337,230.00
Faith
Pentecostal
I read that link, it says it's from Victoria. Here's a link to an article about it.

FCC Commissioner Blasts Attempt By House Democrats to Shut Down Fox News: ‘Chilling Transgression’ of Free Speech

Quite frankly it's absurd. This is typical leftist ideology and shows just another reason why the left is so dangerous. They want control over what you read, see and hear. They are banning books, and now they want to ban points of view and news they don't agree with. Sounds a lot like what happens in dictatorships.

Freedom of the press is sacrosanct. As is freedom of speech. If you don't like it you don't have to listen to it it read it. You don't have a right to try and shut it down so others can't see it or hear it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Guinan

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2020
1,071
1,811
Texas
✟50,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Free speech goes hand and have with freedom of the press. It’s right there in the amendment.

And there are specific limitations on freedom of the press as well.

Freedom of Speech and the Press

There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.

1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit inappropriate contentography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child inappropriate contentography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.

2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).

3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Few things are as deceptive as commercial advertising.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
When does free speech cross the line and become a false cry of "Fire!" in a crowded theater? It's a question, but OANN and Newsmax, at least, crossed that line a long time ago.
That's all it takes to justify cancelling free speech rights.

And some people will fall for it, that's true enough.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,185
25,222
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,693.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
And there are specific limitations on freedom of the press as well.

Such as...

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence. For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit inappropriate contentography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child inappropriate contentography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Source: Freedom of Speech and the Press. More restrictions are included in the document.
Which isn’t relevant to any of the news sources.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.