User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:28:02 AM EDT
 CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:28:43 AM EDT
[#1]
SUre do.
And Clean_Cut would be the first restrickion. SGtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:29:28 AM EDT
[#2]
NO
Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:33:53 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:36:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Only on convicted felons.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:38:12 AM EDT
[#5]
NOT NO BUT HELL NO!
With one exception... Liberal musicians and actors aren't allowed to say anything that's political in nature! CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:38:17 AM EDT
[#6]
No restrictions as stated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:39:19 AM EDT
[#7]
NO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:41:47 AM EDT
[#8]
So I should be allowed to yell "bomb!" on an airplane?
CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:42:43 AM EDT
[#9]
Should you be allowed to yell "bomb!" when you see a bomb? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Fraud = "free speech" Libel = "free speech" Slander = "free speech" Perjury = "free speech" Conspiracy = "free speech" Advocate Violent Overthrow Of Gov't = "free speech" Inciting Riot = "free speech" Sedition & Treason = "free speech" Selling Kiddie Porn = "free speech" No restrictions = "NO RESTRICTIONS" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:43:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Well, there are some things I'd rather not have my kids see on TV.... I mean, would you unrestricted 1st ammendment supporters be OK if EVERY TV show in every time slot had kiddie porn or beastiality in it, even the kids programs??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:44:45 AM EDT
[#12]
No.
I don't really blame the idiot spewing the shit but I've got "Issues" with those that BELIEVE some of the crap that gets put out. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:48:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Yes, and when the rest of the passengers find out you were "joking", they should exersice their right to free speech and beat the crap out of you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:48:58 AM EDT
[#14]
Exactly - "no restrictions" would mean that it would be okay for pedophiles to sell kiddie porn in front of the elementary school your kid goes to. Taken to the extreme, it would probably also mean that it would be okay for people to have anal sex in public - say in the Lincoln Memorial or in the playground of your kid's elementary school. Obscenity laws would probably not withstand a court challenge if there were "no restrictions" on the 1st. Death threats would also be legal, right up to the point where you actually carried them out. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:49:54 AM EDT
[#15]
 why the hell do you think we have a second amendment?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:53:18 AM EDT
[#16]
To shoot people who are simply exercising their right to free speech of course. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:56:55 AM EDT
[#17]
Using my own feces and building a Imo Jima Marine WWII replice would be an example of un-resricted free speech.
SGtar15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:57:37 AM EDT
[#18]
thats some answer there cheif 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 9:59:15 AM EDT
[#19]
What did you expect with such a dumbfucking question there squire?  |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:01:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Funny how most of us who swear by a "strict interpretation" of the US Constitution are stumbling all over themselves on this one.
And most of you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:01:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Yes. Ideologies/religions calling for the destruction of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment shouldn't be tolerated or benefit from its protection. Kind of a paradox, but it's a paradox of self-preservation. Otherwise, it's like embracing a cobra.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:05:03 AM EDT
[#22]
No |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:05:16 AM EDT
[#23]
The question can be better stated. I would ask, "Are there restrictions on free speech?" The answer is, Yes. Many have listed some of them above. The question to ask is, "Why did the Founding Fathers not feel the need to list "reasonable restrictions" to free speech?" The answer is in their intent. It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams. We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams Simply put, the Founding Fathers believed that the vast majority of citizens were (and would be) Christians and would be restricted by the teachings of the New Testament. A Christian man does not need to be told not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. He does not need to be told not to yell "Bomb!" on an airplane. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." I invite you to read many such comments at this site: www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:05:46 AM EDT
[#24]
My point is you were saying how the freedom of discussing sedition and advocating the violent overthrow of the government were bad, yet why the hell do you think the second amendment was created?. The founding fathers wern't thinking about Red Dawn when they wrote it, they realized government could become a tyranny and therefore acts of sedition would be necassary to restore freedom. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:08:33 AM EDT
[#25]
yes but don't cry when someone strangles you with their tie or an air marshal shoots you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:08:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Responsible parenting starts at home, not preaching but if you do not like what is on the television then it is not the Televisions fault. Get the kids off the TV and make them do other things, I did it with mine and it worked for me.The viewing on TV is bad at least and I can understand where you are coming from, what I do for my grand daughter is I do review what she watches with strict protocol for what is acceptable and what is not. No violence or porn or cussing, no exceptions. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:09:36 AM EDT
[#27]
Stupid people need ejected thru the dump tube. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:13:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Hey guys, if you are a strict interpretationalist, you must agree that the founding fathers DID NOT intend for there to be NO limits on the freedom of speech.
In fact, they just about *invited* it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:14:08 AM EDT
[#29]
I suppose one could think of certain instances more than that often repeated "crying fire in a movie theater argument".
The main problem we have now is that, though we have free speech, we don't have fair free speech. In other words, the tv media can tell any lies they want right now, like those about gun ownership, for instance, and not be held accountable. When was the last time you ever heard of a tv network in danger of losing their license to broadcast? The airwaves they broadcast on belong to ALL of the american people, not just those that are employed by a network that essentially rents the airwaves. These people like Dan Rather, can say anything they want to millions of people each day, and you and I don't have that "right". This is not fair free speech, and in my opinion, it's hurting our country, and I believe that the licenses to broadcast on radio, tv or other public airwaves should be more regulated for accuracy, not neccessarily content. It should be much easier for NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. to lose their license and have someone else come in and be able to get it. This won't happen, of course, because so much money is invested in these networks that if the FCC yanked a license, billions of dollars would be lost by investors, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:16:29 AM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:18:14 AM EDT
[#31]
"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."
Some of you guys need reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:19:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Some folks see "Conflicts" with the 1st and 2nd amend' being absolute when the question of public and private property are involved.
Blurring that line has been a goal of the left for decades. If you're in an Aircraft (Private property) or a theatre (Private property) or on a web page (Private property) (Or for that matter, in my living room) the OWNER (If "Ownership" means anything???) sets the rules. It's only on "Public" (IE: Owned by everyone and no-one) property that things get F'd-up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:20:00 AM EDT
[#33]
And today we are FAR FAR beyond the moral and religious society in which our Constitution could even hope to function as intended. Hence, the oppressive welfare/police-state today that smothers individual rights and responsibility and can only be maintained by incessantly going after and eradicating any remnants of morality and religiosity from the public and government arenas. As long as the Leviathan of Gov't has its tentacles firmly entwined in every facet of public and business activity, it will use its full force and power to prevent a return of morality and religiousity to those areas knowing that that will prevent the society as a whole from returning to that "moral and religous people" for which the Consititution and its central theme of LIMITED GOVERNMENT could thrive again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:22:23 AM EDT
[#34]
anyone speaking out against anything should be thrown in the gulag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:28:16 AM EDT
[#35]
No. Also legalize drugs. treat them like alcohol or cigarettes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:30:20 AM EDT
[#36]
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Often attributed to Voltaire.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:31:06 AM EDT
[#37]
This is the Mac I know and love.... |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:32:25 AM EDT
[#38]
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect against the anarchy of absolutism. In fact the FFs anticipated (in the Constitution itself) that Congress would create laws against sedition, treason, inciting riots, copyright infringement even though all of those are violations of an "absolutist" interpretation of the 1st Amendment. The FFs also had laws against fraud, indecency, slander, perjury etc. and saw no reason to spell out every exception under the sun in the 1st Amendment because of exactly what Old_Painless pointed out in his quote by John Adams - that as long as America was a moral and religious people, the Constitution would operate clearly as intended, as opposed to the blurred muddiness in Consitutional interpretation seen in today's amoral rudderless society. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:33:28 AM EDT
[#39]
Fuck you  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:33:31 AM EDT
[#40]
Using your feces to smear on the ACTUAL Iwo Jimo memorial, or the Vietnam wall would be an example of un-restricted free speech. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:33:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Reno-VS-ACLU ring a bell? Read it, very interesting |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:38:26 AM EDT
[#42]
And if some Marines were there at the time, it would also get you an example of un-restricted stomp-ass. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:43:54 AM EDT
[#43]
I wasn't aware of it but I did notice that it pertained to minors (Who're using their parent's ISP's) on-line. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:49:00 AM EDT
[#44]
Maybe some practical restriction, like ones that are already in place
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:53:22 AM EDT
[#45]
"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."
The founding fathers saw fit to clearly prescribe boundaries on who and what could and could not restrict 1st Amendment freedoms. They saw fit to tie CONGRESS' hands on the matter, not states or other levels of government. This is the true strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 10:57:19 AM EDT
[#46]
Believe me. Im the same way. When they do watch TV its monitored. My post was merely pointing out if EVERY program was like that.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 11:01:00 AM EDT
[#47]
If it wasn't for protection againt an absolute tyranny, then why was it created? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". While it could be interpreted as the protection from outside powers, quotes like "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", make it sound like more of an internal affair. As for what Old Painless stated, we all know this is far from a moral and religious country, so does that mean we should abandon the constitution? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 11:12:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Most definitely.
I think people should need permits to speak in public, and in many states should have to conceal their speech because it might worry others. I also think that people should only be able to speak as a group, not individually. Finally, people should have to pay a huge tax and wait a long time to be able to speak or type faster than 60 wpm. Oh, and foreign documents need to have a certain number of American words in them or they may not be imported. eta: One thing I would like to see, however, all sarcasm aside, is a new federal law requiring TRUTH IN POLITICS, and providing SEVERE sanctions for intentionally misrepresenting positions, facts, or anything else. It would never pass because...well...we all know why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 11:25:08 AM EDT
[#49]
The absolutist interpretation of the Constitution MUST allow for anarchy (as in pointed out with some examples earlier), so what you're saying is that Constitution promotes an anarchistic society, as opposed to a democratic republic?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2005 11:34:13 AM EDT
[#50]
Of course (and God bless those hypothetical leathernecks) - and being willing to live the consequences of one's actions is supremely important, and something that in my opinion is sadly disappearing from society. That said, in the hypothetical world where the 1st amendement is "unrestricted" those Marines would be arrested, probably convicted for assault, and sued for every penny they own by the feces-smearer. After all, if the 1st were unrestricted, what the marines would do is no different from beating the crap out of an artist because you don't like his paintings, or climbing onto the stage at the opera and pummling the diva because you don't like her singing. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
