No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers ***NO POLITICS
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter
In light of recent events, there's been talk about what is and isn't acceptable as free speech. So, I'm curious as to what other folks here think. What restrictions, if any, would you approve of or allow on free speech/expression?
For me personally......the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." And that sounds good to me. No law means no law, not some laws. And, of course with Congress being the only branch with the power to make law, whatever the executive and judiciary thinks is irrelevant. I personally would be all for no restrictions at all on speech and expression. Of course, there are other laws that don't restrict speech, but may still prevent it in certain instances. (For example....burning a flag should be legal, but we have laws against starting fires in city streets, which would prevent burning a flag during a protest in cities).
Example.....morons parading around ON the road, blocking it. Ya can say the same thing from the sidewalk. The people blocking roads under the free speech guise should look like most possums that wonder around on the road.
There comes a point liberalism has gone too far, we're past that point.
Example.....morons parading around ON the road, blocking it. Ya can say the same thing from the sidewalk. The people blocking roads under the free speech guise should look like most possums that wonder around on the road.
I would agree with this. Whatever they're protesting about is fine, but we have laws about standing in the road.
Unless, of course, they've obtained a parade permit (which of course should be approved or denied on a content-neutral basis).
Should it really be legal to use obscenities around young kids? I'm old fashioned, maybe but I don't think that's ever necessary. As far as expressing ideas, no restrictions.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Standing on the roads/highways was always illegal the woke powers at be did not enforce the laws on the books for fear of upsetting their woke voter base. If enforcement got out of control it might hurt their reelection efforts and dark money.
Was born in a Big City Will die in the Country OK with that!
I agree with your take on the First Amendment. What people don't seem to understand that you can say or post pretty much anything (Other than yelling FIRE in a crowded theater) but there can be repercussions from employers. People that have a job where they are in a position of prominence or power can be relived from their employment because of actions detrimental to their employer's reputation or culture. This also applies to every position in said company. This is especially true of private companies and in my home state of Missouri concerning state government jobs. These fall under the category of " At Will " employers. Meaning that you can be dismissed for any reason other than a violation of Federal Labor Laws. I remember being told at statewide conferences more than once, that we were all "at will" employees. Still doesn't sit well after all these years. (This was the Missouri Department of Conservation). At any rate, in most circumstances, you can be let go because of your actions including " free speech" from any "at will" job or a violation of job contracts.
In light of recent events, there's been talk about what is and isn't acceptable as free speech. So, I'm curious as to what other folks here think. What restrictions, if any, would you approve of or allow on free speech/expression?
For me personally......the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." And that sounds good to me. No law means no law, not some laws. And, of course with Congress being the only branch with the power to make law, whatever the executive and judiciary thinks is irrelevant. I personally would be all for no restrictions at all on speech and expression. Of course, there are other laws that don't restrict speech, but may still prevent it in certain instances. (For example....burning a flag should be legal, but we have laws against starting fires in city streets, which would prevent burning a flag during a protest in cities).
We had our voices silenced in the last regime...
But I think you mis - remembered that..
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.
IThere is NOTHING left to be talked about with the left.
I agree, they're dumb. Thankfully, I haven't seen any lefties in this thread.
Originally Posted by Nessmuck
Originally Posted by loosegoose
In light of recent events, there's been talk about what is and isn't acceptable as free speech. So, I'm curious as to what other folks here think. What restrictions, if any, would you approve of or allow on free speech/expression?
For me personally......the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." And that sounds good to me. No law means no law, not some laws. And, of course with Congress being the only branch with the power to make law, whatever the executive and judiciary thinks is irrelevant. I personally would be all for no restrictions at all on speech and expression. Of course, there are other laws that don't restrict speech, but may still prevent it in certain instances. (For example....burning a flag should be legal, but we have laws against starting fires in city streets, which would prevent burning a flag during a protest in cities).
We had our voices silenced in the last regime...
But I think you mis - remembered that..
Nope. Didn't forget it at all.
Anyway.....
Originally Posted by Trapper7
Too often free speech starts out that way, then turns violent. George Floyd in the Twin Cities comes to mind for one.
This is basically the answer, as far as I see it. If speech crosses into criminal action, then, of course, it's no longer speech and should be dealt with as such. But speech/expression, in and of itself, just isn't violence, no matter what that speech is, despite what lefties might say. (They also say silence is violence, so I guess they just can't make up their mind.)
Should it really be legal to use obscenities around young kids? I'm old fashioned, maybe but I don't think that's ever necessary. As far as expressing ideas, no restrictions.
Who gets to decide what is obscene and what isn't? What would be the legal age for kids to hear obscenities? Of course people shouldn't swear around kids, but that's a common sense thing that no law is going to change.
if any other party was trying to impose this restriction , would it be the same , because it will flip and flop back and forth and it is very important to remember anything imposed today will be imposed in reverse tomorrow.
so limiting the power of any one party is always in the best interest of the American people for tomorrow the balance of the isle might change.
there is an election every 2 years and the average age of Congress is almost 58 and the average age of the senate is almost 65 anything can change any time just out of natural circumstance.
America only has one issue, we have a Responsibility crisis and everything else stems from it.
Example.....morons parading around ON the road, blocking it. Ya can say the same thing from the sidewalk. The people blocking roads under the free speech guise should look like most possums that wonder around on the road.
Careful. You're gonna offend some people on here and be accused of being mentally deficient.
How many lies will people believe before they realize their own idiocy?
Too often free speech starts out that way, then turns violent. George Floyd in the Twin Cities comes to mind for one.
But George Floyd did nothing wrong except get high. He wasn't a career criminal and dead beat. He took care of all his children and was an upstanding father and citizen. Who wouldn't protest for such a horrible miscarriage of the legal system?
Sarcasm.
How many lies will people believe before they realize their own idiocy?
He crossed the line into conspiracy to commit murder (action, not speech).
"wouldn't i be great if someone killed those people" = free speech
"Tonight I want you to go murder these people at this house" = conspiracy to commit murder.
Same way as:
"Wouldn't it be great if we overthrew the government" = free speech
"Tomorrow at 8:15 we're gonna storm the capitol building and over throw the government" = conspiracy and treason
Now apply that to J6 and what the democrats conspired to do in response.[/quote]
Actually.....maybe the overthrowing the govt example wasn't a good one. While it's obviously against the law to conspire to overthrow the government, the right to overthrow a tyrannical government is a natural right inherent to mankind. But, of course, no government is going legalize its own destruction, so I guess that's a case of "the winners write the history books". While it will never be legalized, it's definitely not immoral to discuss and plan the overthrow of the government.
I'll bite.. if government shall make no laws against free speech. Okay. My current congressman a Republican. Wants to withhold federal funding. From city's where some Democrats made what he says where inappropriate remarks about his freind Charlie Kirk. Cities or districts that make inappropriate remarks about current administration should not get federal funding or support.. ??? Nice! How does that work in free speech thing? Biggest problems with people crying fee speach is. They want free speach with no consequences. Which is not dictated by government as much as location. Stand in street obstruct traffic. Expect maybe get run over. Tell your boss to cram it then claim free speech when your fired. See how that goes. Im guessing like myself there are few here got back hand or bar of soap in the mouth. When you tried free speech thing with mom. Like here on T man. PAUL'S House so his rules with your free speech rights. In truly public place or your yard blow your horn. Unless it's after 10:00pm and you wake me up. Then there is a problem.
It's the price of freedom to have to hear things that you disagree with and things that anger you. That doesn't mean talking stupid shouldn't get you fired, that's not a free speech issue... that's a question of how much freedom does an employer have in who he wants working for him.
Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
A private employer isn't the government, and should be able to do whatever they want regarding punishing you for your speech. Same with your parents, or Paul here on Tman.
Regarding free speech without consequences......there should be no consequences from the government for speech. Of course we want free speech without consequences from the government. Apply it to a different right, like the 2nd......we want to own guns without consequences from the government. If there are consequences from the government for speech, then you don't have free speech.
The whole problem with punishing speech is that you won't always be the one to decide which speech is punishable. To use Macrhwdivers example......if you're okay with the current administration withholding funding for inappropriate remarks, beware.....the next administration might so the same thing, for remarks that you find perfectly acceptable.
The inherent flaw in liberty is the right to do. Sure you can do it but is it best to do it? Every action has consequences. Individuals confuse right to do with right to do without consequences. I'm all for consequences.
![[Linked Image]](8a3gq5-1.jpg)
