HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Congress shall make no l...

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:47 AM

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.



John Kerry representing Vietnamese Veterans Against the War at a protest in Washington, D.C., April 20-21, 1971 (Photo: Library of Congress, LC-U9-24273)






?w=620

Snowden at human rights Meeting. conference.










Recent State Department briefing.


QUESTION: You dont think that he should have a forum? Has he hes forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?


MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden : Our concern here is that hes been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform





14 replies, 1709 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. (Original post)
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 OP
jberryhill Jul 2013 #1
flpoljunkie Jul 2013 #2
Igel Jul 2013 #9
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #5
AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #3
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #4
allin99 Jul 2013 #12
sigmasix Jul 2013 #6
Ichingcarpenter Jul 2013 #8
ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #7
Igel Jul 2013 #10
ChairmanAgnostic Jul 2013 #11
Catherina Jul 2013 #13
KoKo Jul 2013 #14

Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:51 AM

1. What does the First Amendment have to do with it?

So, if you are my doctor, and I enter a contractual relationship with you as my patient, you are free to publish my medical records?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:06 AM

2. Not only the First Amendment, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Excerpt from Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S. by Daniel Ellsberg

But Snowdens contribution to the noble cause of restoring the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution is in his documents. It depends in no way on his reputation or estimates of his character or motives still less, on his presence in a courtroom arguing the current charges, or his living the rest of his life in prison. Nothing worthwhile would be served, in my opinion, by Snowden voluntarily surrendering to U.S. authorities given the current state of the law.

I hope that he finds a haven, as safe as possible from kidnapping or assassination by U.S. Special Operations forces, preferably where he can speak freely.

What he has given us is our best chance if we respond to his information and his challenge to rescue ourselves from out-of-control surveillance that shifts all practical power to the executive branch and its intelligence agencies: a United Stasi of America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_1.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:14 AM

9. So what you're saying is ...

That Ellsberg was arrested and his property searched and seized for the trial that's going to be held in the next few weeks. The government's just drawing up the means necessary to make it seem like the arrest was a good idea and the penalty that's already decided on is appropriate?

Too bad we can't protest. In this case I'd assume that his family will be notified of his arrest by after the punishment's been decided on, with a note saying that she may want to go to the prison where he's being held and bring warm clothes, toothbrushes, personal necessities and even some food to help augment what he'll get when he's sent away to prison.

Because that's what I keep getting told we're *worse* than. So if we're worse than that, that's the bare minimum I expect to see. Otherwise the claim's falsified. Just like vitalism in chemistry, vaccine-based autism conspiracies, and Lamarckism.

Then again, those are still oft-mentioned claims at the present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:24 AM

5. No, but I'm free to give them to the government

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:08 AM

3. "In Washington, DC"

 

You left off "In Moscow" on Snowden's caption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllINeedIsCoffee (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:22 AM

4. OK we need free speech zones

both are US citizens speaking against their government's policy but only allowed in certain circumstances.


Got It.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:11 PM

12. lol, well DUH, due process only counts inside the U.S. why not free speech. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:25 AM

6. shouldn't one read the entire interview b4 setting hair alite?

The interviewer tried to get her to say Snowden should have no 1st amendment rights- many times through-out the state department conference, some interview questioners attempted different semantic contortions to insist that snowden's 1st amendment rights are being denied. Mrs Psaki denied this characterization over and over. Instead of hearing the truth, some interviewers in the state department hearing kept insinuating that Psaki was covering for shadowy agents (of Obama?), out to deny 1st amendment rights to Snowden.
In the interest of fairness shouldn't the OP contain the whole conference questioning session so that the behavior of the interviewers can be examined for extreme confirmation bias and general dishonesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sigmasix (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:57 AM

8. Show me the quote..

I'm game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 07:27 AM

7. Duh, Ich!

Where does the constitution's amendments mention the president, State, or the FBI? Huh? Huh? Because they aren't mentioned, those amendments don't apply. They no longer exist, not where national scrutiny is involved.

Sheesh, some people . . . .damned terrorist librul, America hating, socialists.
After all, it's for our own good. Trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChairmanAgnostic (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:16 AM

10. Or Moscow.

At the same time, I don't that a state dept. spokesperson is a legislator or that every word she said becomes law upon being uttered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:33 AM

11. I was hoping the sarcasm was dripping off my words.

I wonder, though, since congress has basically abandoned its duties, does that mean that the other branches must step in? What does that do to the bill of rights? With today's supremes, oh dear. We have trouble in river city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 08:51 AM

13. And yet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:52 PM

14. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread