Do You Support The First Amendment?

[IncendiaryGunner]

It was originally satirical, but after thinking about it, I too noted how important it is to see how other Amendments are viewed in relation to the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
I would agree that based on how some relate the second, as should having absolutely zero infringements, that standard should also be applied to the first (ie permits for assembly being unconstitutional).

Looking a bit further (and I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers) how is this not protected as assembly/free speech?

What act did these men commit that AREN'T protected by the Constitution. Voter Intimidation? There is no record of either of these men physically accosting anyone. There is no record of the physically preventing anyone to vote. How is this type of speech NOT protected, via the Constitution?

Which is exactly why their prosecution was dropped.... They had little to no evidence that anything they did was illegal.

Are you simply making the argument that they should have been left alone and not detained, or am I missing something?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Which is exactly why their prosecution was dropped.... They had little to no evidence that anything they did was illegal.

Are you simply making the argument that they should have been left alone and not detained, or am I missing something?

No, it was dropped because Eric Holder wanted it dropped. If it had been white people talking to black people in the manner they did it would not have been dropped by Holder.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

No, it was dropped because Eric Holder wanted it dropped. If it had been white people talking to black people in the manner they did it would not have been dropped by Holder.

What person was intimidated?

I mean, literally, what individual was victimized, and what proof did the court have to prosecute them on charges of intimidation?

I may not have followed this story close enough to know, so if I am missing something fill me in - but I recall the only accusations being their presence and "brandishing a police style weapon".

 

[Bunnykid68]

I will be honest, I was just going off of hearsay at the time over 3 years ago. Have no idea who, what or where it was talked about.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is at least one place I heard about it

Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons | Fox News

Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case | Fox News

Google is my friend, sometimes

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Don't take my comments as agreeing with the statements or political theater of the black panthers part... because I do not...

However if we consider something an unalienable right endowed by our creator, then that right must extends to all men and women.

Just because you have to the right to speak freely, does not mean you are permitted to infringe of the rights of others - but without proof that holds up in court, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[IrishFiddler]

Just as in regard to the 2nd Amendment. Penalties for criminal behaviors that just happen to involve speech are different than prior restraints of speech. 1st or 2nd, it's the prior restraint in which there is contention.

^^^^ This - Prior restraint is the big issue in my mind. If a criminal act has been committed, armed or not, that is another issue entirely. Infringing the rights of a law-abiding individual, based on anyone's belief that there is a "potential" for harm is counter to the intent of the framers and the Bill of Rights as ratified by the states. There should be no exceptions to the concept of "shall not be infringed" for otherwise law-abiding citizens. If a law has been broken, let the justice system do what it was intended to do, but don't set restrictions that were not laid out in the original amendment unless a subsequent amendment, with the new language clearly outlined, is ratified by the states. That's the way the Constitution and Bill of Rights are intended to be modified - not by executive fiat, general acts of congress, decisions by the courts that are not supported by the basic and accepted laws (courts are not supposed to MAKE laws), or international treaties.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

What infringement upon freedom of speech can be considered a "common sense" infringement?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Don't take my comments as agreeing with the statements or political theater of the black panthers part... because I do not...

However if we consider something an unalienable right endowed by our creator, then that right must extends to all men and women.

Just because you have to the right to speak freely, does not mean you are permitted to infringe of the rights of others - but without proof that holds up in court, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

I gotcha, but they did not even have to answer to the allegations. They put the kibosh on it.

 

[J_Wales]

It was originally satirical, but after thinking about it, I too noted how important it is to see how other Amendments are viewed in relation to the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
I would agree that based on how some relate the second, as should having absolutely zero infringements, that standard should also be applied to the first (ie permits for assembly being unconstitutional).

Looking a bit further (and I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers) how is this not protected as assembly/free speech?

What act did these men commit that AREN'T protected by the Constitution. Voter Intimidation? There is no record of either of these men physically accosting anyone. There is no record of the physically preventing anyone to vote. How is this type of speech NOT protected, via the Constitution?

Let them say what they want.

Can I bear arms at the polls in case one of these jackasses decides to carry out an actual assault and I need to dispatch the jackasses to save myself or my loved ones from physical harm?

 

[J_Wales]

What infringement upon freedom of speech can be considered a "common sense" infringement?

It depends on whom you ask. Some say this is common sense:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t_amendment_to_regulate_political_speech.html

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It deep hands on whom you ask. Some say this is common sense:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t_amendment_to_regulate_political_speech.html

Rofl - I sometimes forget "corporations are people too"

 

[churchmouse]

Many scream for Liberty... then **** their pants when she actually shows up. Then they do their best to chain her down.

This

 

[88GT]

It was originally satirical, but after thinking about it, I too noted how important it is to see how other Amendments are viewed in relation to the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
I would agree that based on how some relate the second, as should having absolutely zero infringements, that standard should also be applied to the first (ie permits for assembly being unconstitutional).

Looking a bit further (and I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers) how is this not protected as assembly/free speech?

What act did these men commit that AREN'T protected by the Constitution. Voter Intimidation? There is no record of either of these men physically accosting anyone. There is no record of the physically preventing anyone to vote. How is this type of speech NOT protected, via the Constitution?

I know you know this, but intimidation comes with the threat of force, implied or not, in an attempt to prevent the other individual from exercising HIS rights as he sees fit.

Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict these two in a court of law for any criminal act, there is little doubt about their intent. And excusing it under the guise of a perfect standard of free speech is wrong. Such a position advocates the control of others through fear and threat of bodily injury. Is that really acceptable to you?

 

[jbombelli]

So do those that do support the 1st also support decency laws then?

Yes. Just as we believe that running around and pointing guns at people is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, we believe that running around naked by a grade school playground is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[jbombelli]

Rofl - I sometimes forget "corporations are people too"

The idea of corporate personhood goes back a long way. It's not something Romney made up.

I won't vote for Romney, but he didn't make that up.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I know you know this, but intimidation comes with the threat of force, implied or not, in an attempt to prevent the other individual from exercising HIS rights as he sees fit.

Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict these two in a court of law for any criminal act, there is little doubt about their intent. And excusing it under the guise of a perfect standard of free speech is wrong. Such a position advocates the control of others through fear and threat of bodily injury. Is that really acceptable to you?

Which individual did they prevent from exercising their rights? Which individuals, and which rights were infringed upon?

The general populace as a concept does not have rights, only individuals...

Without implying a threat, intimidation does not exist.

Once someone intimidates another person, or infringes upon their rights - prosecuting them for that infringement is not in the category of "common sense" limitations on freedom of speech. His freedom of speech still exists wholly intact, and he cannot defend his actions by claiming "freedom of speech" - because freedom of speech does not encompass infringement on the rights of others.

The point is very fine, but many of the things that people claim are "common sense" infringements on freedoms of speech, are truly outside the scope of freedom of speech in the first place, and in that regard - are not infringements upon the right at all.

 

[J_Wales]

Such a position advocates the control of others through fear and threat of bodily injury. Is that really acceptable to you?

He's an LEO. Chances are good!

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I know you know this, but intimidation comes with the threat of force, implied or not, in an attempt to prevent the other individual from exercising HIS rights as he sees fit.

Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict these two in a court of law for any criminal act, there is little doubt about their intent. And excusing it under the guise of a perfect standard of free speech is wrong. Such a position advocates the control of others through fear and threat of bodily injury. Is that really acceptable to you?

I understand. The threat of force.

 

[firehawk1]

Yes. Just as we believe that running around and pointing guns at people is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, we believe that running around naked by a grade school playground is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Ah... so some restrictions are in fact ok after all. If my gun I am waving around isn't loaded and I shoot no one who have I harmed, no one, no more than someone yelling FIRE in a crowded theater apparently has according to some. You are assuming what my thoughts were, not my actual actions. If me waving a gun around causes your husband/wife to have a heart attack and die... sue me.... AFTER THE FACT. THAT is a restriction on my 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Maybe I like to run around playgrounds naked. Again, exactly WHO have I harmed. If I freak out your kid, sue me AFTER THE FACT. Don't restrict my 1st amendment rights. So you are fine with restricting my freedom of speech/expression. Somehow I'M a treasonous snake destroying everyone's liberty, etc...., but your position is somehow acceptable????? Hi pot, I'm kettle.

See, it comes down to each person's definition of "common sense" requlations of the 1st and 2nd amendments.