Four New York Democratic Senators: “Proponents of a More Refined First Amendment Argue That This Freedom Should Be Treated Not as a Right But as a Privilege.” “The law would put a wide range of speakers — including those who speak to the public at large, or to a group of willing listeners — at the mercy of a prosecutor’s, judge’s, and jury’s decision about whether the speech has a ‘legitimate purpose.’” Do the math: “legimate purpose” = “something politicians approve of.” Liberals = Fascists.
View Comments (41)
And people wonder why I don't trust the government!
Liberals = Fascists.
Bears repeating.
I see 4 Demoratic Senators from NY who need to be recalled, and then tarred and feathered.
Have you ever noticed that where liberals/progressives rule, that there are speech codes, hate speech rules, & free speech zones? All designed to give the people some free speech, on the rulers terms, of course. It's BS & we know it is. These 4 assclowns should be expelled form their seats today, but since someone will stand up for their right to free speech talking about limiting ours, nothing will happen.
Yes, I have noticed it and the more I see it the more I get annoyed that liberals stole the word "liberal". There is nothing liberal about liberals. The Left is gifted at twisting speech.
The root word of liberal is...liberty.
The progressive left is not for liberty, it is for control, by any means necessary.
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 above pretty much sums it all up. They are called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Once you start down the slop there is no turning back. I would rather let people rant, rave and make fools of themselves than have some politician deciding what is and is not free speech.
So, should we undo the laws that make it illegal to commit libel, slander, possess and create child pornography, threaten people with harm, commit perjury, yell "fire" in a crowded theater and cause panic, public nudity, disorderly conduct, allowing adult men to marry underage girls, or any other various number of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression and First Amendment rights we have in our society? We started "down that road" as soon as the Bill of Rights was written when politicians and judges started deciding what free speech and free expression are.
Speaking of 'men marrying underaged girls'. That's pretty normal in your part of the woods, isn't it? you need to quit taking snorts of that rot gut and looking at lulu that way. Maybe I'm joking, I don't know:)
The left has lost the war of ideas and the only avenue left is to remove 'certain' ideas from public discourse.
Yes, this is totalitarianism. Yes, this is from the 'liberal' party. Yes, These are the people that our founding fathers were scared of.
Oh, but it's only to protect the weak from "bullying."
"What did you say about President Obama? Hey, that's bullying!"
Let's see - pass this stupid law - then the next time a newspaper, magazine, or website publishes something you don't like you go judge shopping and find a loon in black robes who will proclaim that whatever was published shall immediately be banned. This could be used by either side of the fence to stifle anything and everything. Exactly why we have a 1st Amendment, which needs to stay exactly as written in the constitution.
As I just mentioned in another reply, our First Amendment rights have never been absolute. Using this absolutist approach, it means that all laws regulating individual conduct should be repealed as unconstitutional including libel/slander, perjury, child pornography, polygamy, adult men marrying underage girls, public nudity, disorderly conduct, public sex, terrorist acts in the name of religious justifications, disrupting public meetings, etc. Individual rights end when they begin to infringe on the individual rights of others, which is not a new "progressive/liberal" idea. If we say that the First Amendment is an absolute right not subject to any restrictions whatsoever, then all forms of public and religious expression are absolute and not subject to any controls even if they cause harm to others. This is the basic argument of the source document, which I am pretty sure you never actually read.
Also, based on your absolutist approach, coupled with the reality that there are multiple limits on free speech and expression in our society, wouldn't you expect "judge shopping" to already be an epidemic? You are also forgetting that the US Supreme Court have continuously said that public figures do not get the same level of protections against libel, slander, and ridicule that private citizens get because the ability to be critical of public figures is essential to a free society. With that being the case, it would take a much more sweeping law to make criticizing Obama a crime under this proposed cyberbullying law. Rather, the concern would be that it would be over-used in prosecuting kids who, in their youthful immaturity, say hurtful things or tease others on the web. My concern is how they would define when the speech is so damaging that the law kicks in, and based on the history of policy makers and law enforcement officials when it comes to children, they will over-react.
Again, I am not saying that the First Amendment is not a fundamental right or that any effort to limit the protections of it should be challenged with deep skepticism and thought. However, I do take issue with how this issue has been framed. The original document specifically said that the First Amendment's protection of speech is fundamental and essential to a free society, and should not be limited without justification based on case law. This is the argument the document is trying to make. If you don't agree, fine. I don't think that we need any new laws against cyberbullying. However, we need to have that honest debate, not cherry pick a single sentence and act like it's the start of a Nazi movement like the other response here suggests. We simply can't engage in the same closed-minded and emotionally charged rhetoric of the left and expect to be taken seriously.
Also, this clearly challenges the issue of "states' rights" that people on the political right obviously have trouble dealing with. On one hand, we try to say that states have the right to make laws that they see fit. On the other hand, when a state tries to pass a law we disagree with, then people cry foul and want it stopped on constitutional grounds. We can't have it both ways. This is a similar issue to the national right to carry law being pushed in Congress to allow concealed carry permit holders to have their permits recognized in all 50 states. Either a state has the right to restrict gun carry in their state, or they don't and the federal government has the authority to intervene in state issues and force them to comply with federal mandates. Either states have the right to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage, or they don't and states must yield to the authority of the federal government if they invoke an absolute Constitutional right to same-sex marriage backed by the First and 14th Amendments. Either New York state has a right to limit speech they define as "cyberbullying" or they must yield to the authority of the federal government and whatever interpretation of the First Amendment is imposed upon the country.
We all see you took the line, hook and sinker with your liberal professors. Sad, sooo sad.
No, I know many liberal professors, most of whom are self-described Marxists. We don't get along very well because they see my conservative/liberatarian views as vulgar and idiotic. I can see you never learned how to objectively engage in a discussion of political topics. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make them a liberal. Your attitude is just as bad as any liberal I've ever tried to discuss topics with. You are like talking to a mindless Obama supporter.
I suppose if simply stating facts regarding the law makes me a progressive liberal, then call me a progressive liberal. If being a conservative now means that we must pretend that things we don't like just don't exist, or that people who point out facts or present arguments that we don't agree with are met with insults and discounted, then I want nothing to do with it.
The arguement over states rights over federal governemnt is an old one, and not just in the US. Just remember, that our civil war was fought over the subject, and even the Mexican Revolution in the early 20th century was fought over the same thing. The bottom line is that the Constitution was set up in a certain way, and you can't cherry pick what you want to follow. I realize it would be easier to have mny things managed at the federal leel, since there is so much travel between the states, etc. But the Constitutionis not written that way, and the constant encroachment of the Federal government over State governments IS unconstitutional. THe question is how long are we going to allow it to continue, and to what extent. The entire country is currently held hostage buy politicians and media and judges, etc from the Northeast, Chicago, and California. The rest of the states could as easily not exist for all the attention paid to their desites. Ther has even been commentary that all the Supreme Court judges are frm similar areas and backgrounds, and since mores vary across the US, their rulings do not take that into consideration.
I agree with you and that is my exact point. Either we have states' rights, or we don't. When you say that the Constitution was set up a certain way, you are exactly right. The way it was set up was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Only until the passage of the 14th Amendment and various subsequent US Supreme Court decisions did the rights protected by the US Constitution apply at the state level. Don't believe me? Just look at Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) for proof. Generally, the rights protected in state constitutions tended to mirror those protected by the US Constitution. As soon as the 14th Amendment was ratified, it forced the states to adhere to the federal interpretation of rights, thus largely making the states' rights argument null and void in many respects. People on all sides of the political spectrum have tried to invoke the states' rights argument, but fail to recognize this legal conundrum that has existed for over a century. Combined with the perversion of the "commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause in the Constitution, the reach of the federal government into state level affairs has made the states' rights argument even more difficult to make. In this case, I suggest that either we have to accept the states' rights argument and respect the right of the state of New York to pass this limitation on free speech, or we ignore the states' rights argument and invoke the authority of the federal government and US Constitution to dictate to the state what they can and can't do. In other words, one can't engage in a states' rights argument, but still say that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to force states to do things they don't want to do. Taking that latter stance can work both ways. We can applaud the use of federal power to force states to do things we like, but must accept that we could be on the receiving end of that federal power regarding policies we don't like.
In this case, I think the proposed law is unnecessary and likely one that would be misused and abused, but I am leery of giving the federal government the authority to dictate to that state how to draft their state laws. If that is how they choose to interpret the acceptable limits on speech, then that is the business of the state of New York, not anyone else.
I believe you are incorrrect about one thing. The bill of rights ensured those "inalienable rights" for every citizen. Several rights were specified. Other rights and priviledges not enumerated in the Constitution were to be left to the states. But the Constitution overrides all. So a state cannot pass a law that is in conflict with the Constitution. A law such as has been described is in clear contrast to the first ammendment of the Constitution, and is therefore invalid.
That's where the Republic stops and a twisting ride through Adolphland begins. Look what happened to Judges under Hitler, they were given extreme power in the name of the party and could sentence anyone to anything up to and including death for a minor offense. Having seen some of our judges, I would rather join a revolution than let these idiot liberals try and define speech. The first Amendment to the Constitution is not privilege but a RIGHT> Driving is a privilege, not a right. I swear some of these idiot liberals don't know the difference and perhaps have never read the Constitution. During World War II and in the cold war millions were not allowed to voice any opposition to the leaders of their countries, Hitler, Stalin, Castro etc, that still is a method of control with Muslims. The one thing that we allow is dissent, These traitors would rather stifle dissent to appease dear leader. Imagine the American version of the KGB following you around (DNC/Move-on.ORG/SEIU spies at work reporting what you said. Where it would end in another revolution. Sadly these four twits have no understanding of history because they are just 70 years removed from a war that killed millions because of crazy men who believed they were the answer to the worlds problems. God help us all if traitors like these stay in power.
The concept of the law is not terrible, but the wording is frightening. Free Speech is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE. One must still be held accountable for ones' words and actions, but to outright suggest that your rights can be removed for any reason is, without a doubt, against the very concepts that the founding fathers wanted for this country.
By all means, punish bullies, arrest people for making death threats, and fine people who yell 'fire' in a crowded area as a prank. But do not EVER suggest that free speech is not a basic human right.
Again, it's obvious that you people aren't actually reading or trying to understand my point. I never said or suggested that free speech isn't a right. What I said is that the original source paper never said it wasn't a fundamental right as these blog posts suggest. The source document specifically said that free speech IS a fundamental right and before we can enact laws placing any limits on that right, it should be legitimate and justified by the established case law, which is what they tried to do.
These blog posts about the original source document suggested that they said it is not a fundamental right. That's my beef. If we can't engage in honest and objective debate on these issues, we are no better than the progressives and the liberals out there who pick and choose their arguments.
You must be feeling wormy today. Go see your vet. Oh, Olivia and you would get along fine fine fine. We don't don't cater much to progressive liberals here either. So pick your poison chump.
Simply amazing. I am a very very solid Libertarian who spent most of my life as a Republican. I am about as far from a progressive liberal as you can get, and if you actually tried to read and comprehend my comments, you might actually grasp that. However, when one immediately resorts to insults at any statement that doesn't follow the trend, that is very telling. I am not one of the "sheeple" who just blindly follow whatever political blogger says because it sounds like something I would agree with. You clearly do.
Although I generally agree with the basis of your argument, the way you have framed this quote is a bit deceptive in my opinion. I read the actual source document and this sentence is contained within a three-plus page discussion of freedom of speech. This discussion starts with a clear declaration that protection of the First Amendment and free speech is essential, but that case law has accepted that the protections afforded in the Amendment is not absolute (such as slander, inciting a riot, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.). They are making an argument that speech related to cyberbullying, which they suggest are “WORDS THAT INFLICT INJURY OR OTHERWISE INCITE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE OR [BREACHES] OF PEACE" and serve no legitimate purpose other than to intimidate, harass, and inflict harm on another person.
I agree with the concern towards criminalizing any speech, but to portray this as a subversive attempt to dismantle the entire First Amendment is a bit disingenuous, as are the hypothetical scenarios proffered by the blog's author. The tone of the report is pretty clear, which is to attempt to address extreme cases of cyberbullying, not regulate legitimate public discourse. We can have the debate whether that is a wise and prudent course of action, but we should have it on honest terms.
This post also gives the illusion that this is a federal law effort, which it is not. The report makes clear that they intend to propose this legislation in the New York state legislature and say that state-level actions are the most appropriate venue for this sort of law. This is not a proposed federal statute and it should not be alluded to as such.
You have mental issues...GO SEEK HELP!!NOW!!! I hope you don't have a shitbrain progressive in mind to help you either. Otherwise, eat the bullet.
My message above was for E_TN_P up north.
And you are a friggin' moron. Please disappear before you pollute the rest of this website with your idiotic and meaningless drivel. It's pretty pathetic when a very solid Libertarian who was a Tea Party guy before there was even a Tea Party can't offer an opinion without some mindless douchebag making insults. If I was to wager a bet, I would bank on the likelihood that you are one of those people who also complain about the left being insulting and idiotic. Call it a hunch.
And um, what did YOU just do? You have infringed upon the very rights this article is about. If you do nothing but insult and judge are you no better than those that presume to judge us? The infighting must stop if we are to defeat the libs in 2012. We must make a consolidated stand if we are to win this fight. Otherwise, once the dust settles, we'll will only fight amongst ourselves and look quite foolish.
No, I took advantage of the rights in the First Amendment. I have been trying to NOT insult and judge, but construct a very reasonable critique of the tone of these blog posts. Instead, I have been insulted. I don't insult or judge until someone specifically and directly insults me for no other reason than to be a troll. I respond in kind. Perhaps that is a bit hypocritical, but I'll accept that when dealing with people like likwidlizard. If I were Chris Christy and had said it, people would be asking me to run for President.
East_TN_Patriot:"I have been insulted."
East_TN_Patriot, wait until you meet Olivia.
But if the Bill is passed as mentioned in the above article, you could be causing emotional or mental damages to Likwidlizard ( who could be 21 and under because we dont know much else about him) and be subject to trail by judge and jury for it. Of course you could counter sue, and on and on it goes........
I have given some thought to your above response, first of all, I Thank You for not directing the flag burning example towards me and I do appreicate your sensitivity.
I do have a question tho, since when has the first amendment's freedom of speech not been held as absolute? Isnt it the very same thing the Adult Film Industry hold as its right to continue? It seems that the First Amendment to free speech has always held as absolute, unless it infringes apon the Liberal or Left's views, where they answer by more government oversight, thus restrciting the freedom granted. Or they may say, freedom to speak, not free of the impending consequence of those words. I do not believe we should open the door for Lawyers and Judges to begin to decide what those consequences will be, because then we all loose the right, and it does become a privilege. Ususally it is the most privileged who benefit from "privileges" which is not for all people, just some.
How many Constitutional Rights given to us in the Amendments have already been redefined by Judges and pushed to a mutant form by Lawyers? This Bill being presented may be gilded by a good intention, but it will kill this republic if enacted.
East_tn_patriot is whinning and upset with me because I took him to task about "Our freedom of speach" which evidently he would like swept under the rug. No, I'm slightly older. Let's just say I started voting legally when NIXON was running for office. It offends me when some idiot thinks it's OK to take what little rights I have AWAY from me. That's where I stand.
Where do you come up with this stuff? I never said any of what you accused me of, nor did I even suggest that, so it's clear you haven't actually read what I wrote. I'm sorry you people don't like reality or even acknowledge that reality is what it is. If you think freedom of speech and expression should be absolute, fine. Let's have that debate, but you just can't pretend that it hasn't been limited for over 200 years in various ways. Trying to engage in a logical debate here is like talking to liberals.
Denied!
East_TN_Patriot, the problem is that liberals are sneaky. They sneak things into their laws that run pages and pages. How many sneaky things did they work into the 2000 page health care bill that have people concerned? We don't want the liberal camel's nose under the tent when it comes to speech.
I agree, but the issue is that the First Amendment right to free speech has never been absolute. The question here is whether this category of harmful speech qualifies as not being subjected to the protections of the First Amendment. Using your absolute argument, slanderous speech is OK even if it destroys an innocent person's life, causing a public panic that results in harm to innocent people is acceptable, and inciting a riot is protected. The logic here is that your rights end where mine begin and if your speech is causing unnecessary harm, your right to that speech can be restricted.
I am not disagreeing at all that we need to look upon these proposed restrictions with skepticism and extreme caution, but I do not advocate portraying the words of the report or the intent of the proposed legislation as something they are not. If we are to have the debate, we should have it honestly and objectively.
On a side note (not directed at Babydoll102187 in any way), I always find it intriguing how many people will use this First Amendment argument for issues they don't agree with, but ignore it for speech and expression they don't agree with (such as burning the American flag or publishing anti-government propaganda).
Perhaps it has never been absolute, but it has ALWAYS been a right. Any right may have legitimate exceptions, when clearly defined and narrowly, specifically tailored.
A privilege works from the other end.
I, for one, do not trust this current batch of politicians to tinker with rights, particularly when they have so recently been mourning how we have "too much democracy" and ought to suspend elections a while so they can get things done.
Its a very bad idea to resrtict it, even at state level. Once the ball starts rolling.....
Although it is to address a growing threat, it only needs a small foothold somewhere to suddenly snow ball. Many once thought alot of, now considered liberal ideas, where too extreme to be legal, but they are now.
From Kerry on MSNBC urging the media not to interview Tea Party members to the North Carolina Governor talking recently about suspending democracy to the recent musings of an Obama official about curtailing freedom covered on this site, to liberal interest in having a Fairness Doctrine for talk radio, all these totalitarian hints from the increasingly desperate left are starting to become concerning. Am I still allowed to say that? Wait a minute ... There's a knock on my door. Oh No! Olivia turned me in! The Obama stormtroopers are here! Gotta run for it!
How did I know that "gay" would come up in the article? Am I psychic, or what?