Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us [View all]Zalatix
(8,994 posts)87. You are looking at an armed rebellion that the WORLD will regret
If you try to make OUR free speech rights "more in line with what United Kingdom, Canada and Germany".
We are NOT the United Kingdom, Canada or Germany. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.
If you don't like that... tough. It ain't changing. Not except over my dead body.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
333 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Alrighty then! How about a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment.
Hey Jude
Sep 2012
#2
Let him or her go ahead and try to sell the repeal of the First Amendment to We the People.
Zalatix
Sep 2012
#7
Will membership on the peoples' committee that subjectively determines "truth",
Riftaxe
Sep 2012
#84
That's the way that it is done now & the reason is, in part, because it is assumed
patrice
Sep 2012
#92
Has nothing to do with the 1st A., and everything to do with slander, libel, and counter-points.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#172
What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#69
Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries?
Whisp
Sep 2012
#274
Yes, I do support the right to lie and I do support the right to speak hatefully.
NYC Liberal
Sep 2012
#143
Mass media must be responsible for truth and common sense and the individual must not incite to
The Wielding Truth
Sep 2012
#155
I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards.
Initech
Sep 2012
#186
I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#23
What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#177
How Is Not Hateful To Make Fun Of Garb That Is Required By A Certain Religion?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#14
The Point Flew Right Over Your Head If You Followed The Discussion Within The Discussion
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#325
It's pretty smart of you to choose to post on a US website, instead of one based in your country.
Nye Bevan
Sep 2012
#62
You interpreted that in the exact opposite manner that I expressed it. Well done! (nt)
Posteritatis
Sep 2012
#249
I Think Some Of Our Guys Said Some Pretty Hateful Things About Right Wing Figures
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#8
The likes of Limbaugh could be fixed with better radio licensing laws and
Waiting For Everyman
Sep 2012
#29
No offense intended, but you really should inform yourself a bit better for this argument.
Vinnie From Indy
Sep 2012
#65
That movie insults a religion, but I have not heard that it incites to riot.
JDPriestly
Sep 2012
#240
+1 & I resist the assumption that we are incapable of doing that reasonably so we must'nt do it in
patrice
Sep 2012
#78
What Infringements On Free Speech Beside Those Established By Case Law Would You Be Comfortable With
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#85
I'd like to see those "established by case law" more widely considered, relative to new technologies
patrice
Sep 2012
#99
Paternalism. "People are bad. They are dumb, so they can't grow. Everything should be defined or not
patrice
Sep 2012
#117
Oh, REALLY? You mean like the UK, that censors articles about the royals because they'd be offended?
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#175
And it led to the first Slander and Libel laws, some of which are still in the books
nadinbrzezinski
Sep 2012
#56
Yep, I'll fight and even DIE for those I disgree with, such as Glen Beck, etc....
liberallibral
Sep 2012
#95
Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based
patrice
Sep 2012
#57
The will to power is fundamental to survival. It's agendas, more but usually way less, honestly
patrice
Sep 2012
#106
Imagine DU If That Law Was On The Books During The Bush* Administration
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#59
Under your proposed limits to our rights, I assume you would allow preachers
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#61
I note the OP refuses to respond, and no patrice the OP does not at all address
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#139
I'm not sure I understand how you get that from OP. Maybe one thing we could talk about would
patrice
Sep 2012
#159
You did not reply to a single question I asked you, nor to any point I raised.
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#197
Wrong. Other peoples in other places reaction to our Freedom of expression is.
hobbit709
Sep 2012
#68
Would this bit of unvarnished mockery of religion be unacceptable in your new country?
Vinnie From Indy
Sep 2012
#70
Would you care if you were the subject of that mockery? What if that mockery progressed to
patrice
Sep 2012
#86
We Have Laws On The Book That Ban Discrimination On The Basis Of Race, Religion, And National Origin
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#96
You and I probably differ on that point of "curtail". I think it is possible to say almost anything
patrice
Sep 2012
#114
Blame the victim? How about blaming the troglodytes who think killing is O.K.? nt
Speck Tater
Sep 2012
#83
Canadian or UK style restrictions would not preclude the filming or posting of Innocence of Muslims
tifanyhunter
Sep 2012
#88
What Would Have Happened If Attorney General Ashcroft Had The Power Of Those Laws Behind Him?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#101
If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the price for the freedom to speak freely,
NYC Liberal
Sep 2012
#148
Defining what constitutes "hate speech" would be a nightmarish, never-ending debate.
Bluefin Tuna
Sep 2012
#97
FAIL. Religious nut jobs are killing us and you're trying to further empower them.
trouble.smith
Sep 2012
#119
But what about the right of those people not to be killed? Why is that less of a right than
patrice
Sep 2012
#135
Manson said he was told to kill by the Bible and the Beatles. Son of Sam said a dog
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#149
I operate on the basic assumptions of rational empiricism, which include the fact that
patrice
Sep 2012
#163
I was responding to a post saying that Manson and Son of Sam claimed cause and effect in their cases
patrice
Sep 2012
#187
Keep up instead of just spouting. David Berkowitz recanted that claim long ago.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#290
I was speaking hypothetically in response to a claim made by someone else. And, if you'll
patrice
Sep 2012
#301
You do understand that the rational methods to which I refer only yield possibilities?
patrice
Sep 2012
#303
Yeah, drug dealers have no part in the crimes committed for whatever high they propagate. nt
patrice
Sep 2012
#305
Nope. Sorry. We let the courts decide when speech has gone so far as to actually harm someone.
kestrel91316
Sep 2012
#127
The religious RW in this country would like nothing more than to limit free speech. n/t
cynatnite
Sep 2012
#128
But freedom is not served by what we are doing. Regressive feedback loops get going and
patrice
Sep 2012
#146
WHO will be the arbiter? You? Me? Oh, wait; it would be THE US SUPREME COURT, TYVM.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#174
You assume that the only effective forms of control are external and, hence, hierarchical
patrice
Sep 2012
#189
What? I'm SAYING that the US Supreme Court has ruled against the OP's restrictive concept.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#288
Why is it that so many people who are allegedly so interested in freedom almost never think in any
patrice
Sep 2012
#308
Do you dispute that the post to which you are responding describes pretty much what is going on
patrice
Sep 2012
#298
Are you implying that the mere fact that some -one/thing expresses something because s/he/they WANT
patrice
Sep 2012
#300
If we're going to limit free speech, let's start with the people who want to get rid of it...
Comrade_McKenzie
Sep 2012
#150
I'm Actually More Concerned About An Expansive Construction Of The Second Amendment
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#152
Oh, haHA! At least these men are more apt to protect speech than YOU, apparently.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#184
You are, alas, completely illogical. To equate rape with speech is, in a word, STUPID.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#286
Just Out Of Curiosity Did You Support Or Oppose The Supreme Court's Flag Burning Decision?
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#185
And I Established That To Some Burning That Cloth Is "Heaping Abuse On Them"
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2012
#220
It may very well be abuse, but outside of specific venues (e.g., schools), "verbal abuse", if not a
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#293
If burning a cloth is OK, then what about burning some paper, like a Koran? nt
kelly1mm
Sep 2012
#223
Disgusting and risible at the same time. JUST WHOM DO YOU NOMINATE to "RE-DO" our Freedom of Speech?
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#171
To everyone reviling OP in this thread, do you consider Citizens United free speech? Why not?
patrice
Sep 2012
#194
I believe the ACLU discusses modification of the Constitution for this & is against it. nt
patrice
Sep 2012
#304
You and the 22 who have so far rec'd this thread may support appeasing the fundies
SpartanDem
Sep 2012
#219
I disagree with all three foreign laws you mention. Citizens United is a different matter.
Jim Lane
Sep 2012
#227
There are people all over the world fighting for free speech sitting in a jail cell
davidn3600
Sep 2012
#228
Jessy169, who among us should decide whose speech, what speech incites to riot?
JDPriestly
Sep 2012
#230
That poster was simply rude and non responsive. I asked specific questions and that
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#247
I am wondering what you would think if there were more and better counter-weapons.
patrice
Sep 2012
#257
See all the above responses to this argument. The U.S. does NOT have laws against "hate speech."
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#285
The U.S. has laws against speech which increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would
patrice
Sep 2012
#307
Perhaps the principle should not be applied by law, but by community assent instead. You've heard
patrice
Sep 2012
#324
The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not restricting speech.
alarimer
Sep 2012
#294
Sorry, but our freedom of expression has saved us and will continue to save us. eom
yawnmaster
Sep 2012
#295
I think this OP was an exercise in dragging a shiny thing under the water behind a boat...
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#296