the first amendment

KD6-3.7

credulous skeptic
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
156
Points
63
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.

pretty amazing sentence.

some things i think people mistake about the first.

1. most people will focus on the establishment clause, but more importantly right now is the free exercise clause. do these stay at home orders violate a person’s right to the free exercise of religion?

2. freedom of speech. most people mistakenly assert that this only means that the government cannot pass a law that impinges on a persons right to free speech and that private entities can limit free speech. what the free speech clause does is enshrine an idea that exists outside of the limited scope of the clause (congress cannot limit free speech).

im concerned about how large tech companies are limiting free speech. “fact checkers” at google should not be deciding what i can and cannot access on a search. i remember when it was easy to find documents, websites and videos of dissident and heterodox ideas. no so anymore. in fact, i should be able to access and read about things that are blatantly false.

3. the right to peaceably assemble brings up another issue with the stay at home orders. while some will say it is for the good of everyone that people dont assemble right now, would that be an acceptable argument for making a law that limits the freedom of the press?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,129
Reaction score
1,947
Points
113
Great thread and very thought provoking. I’m not sure there’s many here who are believers in 1a
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
2,403
Points
113
“fact checkers” at google should not be deciding what i can and cannot access on a search.
But you should get unlimited use of Google's proprietary, private search technology without having to pay for it. :rolleyes:
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
777
Points
113
Good thread. Some of the OP's understanding is lacking, but the thread is worthy.
 

KD6-3.7

credulous skeptic
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
156
Points
63
But you should get unlimited use of Google's proprietary, private search technology without having to pay for it. :rolleyes:
weird, i never said that.

let me ask you a question. if you were wondering if the clinton administration ever water boarded anyone, where would you go to find that information?
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Congress. Run and win a seat to Congress. Otherwise, ask your Congressman to send you a copy of data from the Library of Congress. Chances are under FOI you will get a boatload of information on the topic unredacted. Sometimes you get it free. Other times, it costs you a few cents a page, depending on the repository.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,576
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
im concerned about how large tech companies are limiting free speech. “fact checkers” at google should not be deciding what i can and cannot access on a search. i remember when it was easy to find documents, websites and videos of dissident and heterodox ideas. no so anymore. in fact, i should be able to access and read about things that are blatantly false.

3. the right to peaceably assemble brings up another issue with the stay at home orders. while some will say it is for the good of everyone that people dont assemble right now, would that be an acceptable argument for making a law that limits the freedom of the press?
It's amazing how many articles, documents, etc. that support conservative ideas have simply vanished from google. Yesteday we were talking about back when Obama had Kenya listed as his home country in his book bio. I googled it up to refresh my memory and there's almost nothing on it anymore. Now it's morphed into just being a promotional booklet, with Snopes & a couple other "debunkers" (wink-wink) having the only prominent info on the story. Back in the days there were pages and pages of stories about the subject.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,202
Reaction score
2,211
Points
113
This is precisely why you don't declare a state of emergency except in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, like the one we're in. You don't want to have to curtail constitutional freedoms except in the case history book-level crises. That's why Trump declaring a state of emergency so he could improperly use funds and bypass environmental protection laws to build that fool wall was such a travesty.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,945
Reaction score
1,122
Points
113
It's amazing how many articles, documents, etc. that support conservative ideas have simply vanished from google. Yesteday we were talking about back when Obama had Kenya listed as his home country in his book bio. I googled it up to refresh my memory and there's almost nothing on it anymore. Now it's morphed into just being a promotional booklet, with Snopes & a couple other "debunkers" (wink-wink) having the only prominent info on the story. Back in the days there were pages and pages of stories about the subject.
Because he didn’t do it in the book.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,759
Reaction score
642
Points
113
Still believe Google is your friend? Well, maybe if you're on the Loony Left they are. Outrageous:

 

KD6-3.7

credulous skeptic
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
156
Points
63
This is precisely why you don't declare a state of emergency except in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, like the one we're in. You don't want to have to curtail constitutional freedoms except in the case history book-level crises. That's why Trump declaring a state of emergency so he could improperly use funds and bypass environmental protection laws to build that fool wall was such a travesty.
1587917866546.png1587917866546.png
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
2,403
Points
113
From your own link:

"
Apple and Google have told critics that their partnership will end once the pandemic subsides. Facebook has said that its aggressive censorship practices will cease when the crisis does. But when COVID-19 is behind us, we will still live in a world where private firms vacuum up huge amounts of personal data and collaborate with government officials who want access to that data. We will continue to opt in to private digital surveillance because of the benefits and conveniences that result. Firms and governments will continue to use the masses of collected data for various private and social ends.

The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks. And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded, the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.

"

1 - just as I said before: you want the convenience that platforms like Google bring you, for free. But then you also want to tell them what to do.

2 - digital speech is harmful, and is relatively unregulated by government, at the moment. I disagree with that, generally

3 - absolutely the government needs to - and will - get involved in regulating internet speech. Good
 

KD6-3.7

credulous skeptic
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,819
Reaction score
156
Points
63
From your own link:

"
Apple and Google have told critics that their partnership will end once the pandemic subsides. Facebook has said that its aggressive censorship practices will cease when the crisis does. But when COVID-19 is behind us, we will still live in a world where private firms vacuum up huge amounts of personal data and collaborate with government officials who want access to that data. We will continue to opt in to private digital surveillance because of the benefits and conveniences that result. Firms and governments will continue to use the masses of collected data for various private and social ends.

The harms from digital speech will also continue to grow, as will speech controls on these networks. And invariably, government involvement will grow. At the moment, the private sector is making most of the important decisions, though often under government pressure. But as Zuckerberg has pleaded, the firms may not be able to regulate speech legitimately without heavier government guidance and involvement. It is also unclear whether, for example, the companies can adequately contain foreign misinformation and prevent digital tampering with voting mechanisms without more government surveillance.

"

1 - just as I said before: you want the convenience that platforms like Google bring you, for free. But then you also want to tell them what to do.

2 - digital speech is harmful, and is relatively unregulated by government, at the moment. I disagree with that, generally

3 - absolutely the government needs to - and will - get involved in regulating internet speech. Good
are you saying that you are alright with congress passing laws that abridge free speech?
 

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
You will relearn what you already know in these comments on this thread. Left wing people believe that they know best what should and should not be allowed to be said. They believe in thought control. China type control of the media is something they are actually quite comfortable with. Indeed, they will very soon take the next logical step on the road to full Communist control of this country: that democracy is an excellent thing and, as only the Communist (Democratic) Party represents the real people of this country, only the Democratic Party should be allowed to run candidates in our perfect, "best", democracy. Just like in China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Our universities have already fully indoctrinated our young people in this line of thinking.
 
Last edited:

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
This is precisely why you don't declare a state of emergency except in all but the most extraordinary circumstances, like the one we're in. You don't want to have to curtail constitutional freedoms except in the case history book-level crises. That's why Trump declaring a state of emergency so he could improperly use funds and bypass environmental protection laws to build that fool wall was such a travesty.
What "emergency" has caused the closure of churches across the north of this state outside of Duluth?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
2,403
Points
113
are you saying that you are alright with congress passing laws that abridge free speech?
Internet speech needs to be regulated.

The hate speech, likely originating outside the boundaries of this country, that you want to protect, shouldn’t be protected.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
696
Points
113
It's amazing how many articles, documents, etc. that support conservative ideas have simply vanished from google. Yesteday we were talking about back when Obama had Kenya listed as his home country in his book bio. I googled it up to refresh my memory and there's almost nothing on it anymore. Now it's morphed into just being a promotional booklet, with Snopes & a couple other "debunkers" (wink-wink) having the only prominent info on the story. Back in the days there were pages and pages of stories about the subject.
Use this video Costa. Obama is visiting Kenya.

Go to the 5:45 mark and listen for 30 seconds.

Of course, keep in mind, that many people won't believe what their own eyes see, because, well, he wasn't born in Kenya.

I have not had one comment from the libtards in the multiple times I've posted this video. It's just dam Crickets.

 
Last edited:

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
9,700
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
Goldteam - if you want an honest answer from someone, insulting them is not going to produce the desired result.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume you are not an idiot.

therefore, you understand that.

ergo, you do not want an honest answer. You want to pose a "straw man" question, and then answer your own question so you can mock people you disagree with.

BTW - liberals do plenty of dumb stuff. there are all kinds of things you could go after liberals for - so why in the bleep are you pounding the "Obama was from Kenya" routine. That would be like me criticizing Ronald Reagan because he made a movie where his co-star was a chimpanzee. It's ancient history.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,202
Reaction score
2,211
Points
113
I'll be the first to say that the misinformation, disinformation, fake news, etc., that seemed to be the difference in the 2016 election--as harmful as it was, I don't see how you can outlaw it in a free society, even if it was a coordinated campaign by an adversary to install a useful idiot to do their bidding. The voting public simply needs to be smarter and more discriminating about what they consume. The political theory is that a free people use that freedom wisely and with a sense of responsibility and that we're stronger when we let all ideas in because we don't want to discard good ideas with all the false ideas.

This should have been a test that this country passed; instead, we failed it. It does make a reasonable person wonder whether this whole experiment in liberal freedom can work. But we have to keep trying to make it work.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
696
Points
113
Goldteam - if you want an honest answer from someone, insulting them is not going to produce the desired result.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume you are not an idiot.

therefore, you understand that.

ergo, you do not want an honest answer. You want to pose a "straw man" question, and then answer your own question so you can mock people you disagree with.

BTW - liberals do plenty of dumb stuff. there are all kinds of things you could go after liberals for - so why in the bleep are you pounding the "Obama was from Kenya" routine. That would be like me criticizing Ronald Reagan because he made a movie where his co-star was a chimpanzee. It's ancient history.
Who did I insult?
 

Crosby

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
204
Reaction score
188
Points
43
Internet speech needs to be regulated.

The hate speech, likely originating outside the boundaries of this country, that you want to protect, shouldn’t be protected.
Anything that incites immediate, unlawful violence should not be protected. Everything else should absolutely be protected. You cannot live in a free society and have it be otherwise.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
2,403
Points
113
The voting public simply needs to be smarter and more discriminating about what they consume. The political theory is that a free people use that freedom wisely and with a sense of responsibility and that we're stronger when we let all ideas in because we don't want to discard good ideas with all the false ideas.
Here's the problem with that idea: that's not at all why it failed.

People weren't duped.

They wanted to believe it. So they did. That's the end all, be all, of fake news and misinformation. People just need someone with even a semblance of authority or credibility to say something that they want to believe is true, in order to then declare that it is the truth.


So that's why the idea doesn't work, and why we need regulation.
 
Top Bottom