1st amendment needs changes

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

The ol theater comment.

Yeah.. because its true... cope much?

Originally Posted by winn dixie

We need real consequences for those calling for violence and hate.

What is "calling for hate?" Can you define hate? I thought it was an emotion... so Hate speech is emotional speech? Doesn't make sense. THere is simply speech you agree with and speech you do not agree with. Anyone can claim speech they disagree with to be hateful, but that doesn't mean it should be banned or result in criminal charges.

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Have your protest then go home. Don't hinder others rights and safety.

Agreed... finally you speak some common sense.

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Give law enforcement tools to disperse these mobs. Whomever they are.

Are there tools they are lacking? Seems the Texas State Patrol has the tools to make them disperse.

What is really lacking is the political will because most politicians are cowards. Their prime directive is don't fcuk up so that you don't get re-elected.

We are getting what YOU voted for.

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Let them disperse at their discretion and actually make these municipalities follow thru and prosecute.

Again that requires prosecutors who are not in George Soros' pocket... again you are getting what YOU voted for.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Daneskold1

“We the people“ suck

Speak for yourself, bucko.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

the groups chanting things like
"Death to Jews" is Hate Speech, surely designed to harass
and frighten others. ... Should THIS type of harassment
be considoured "protected speech"??

It's not hate speech... there is no such thing. It is simply speech YOU disagree with.

And so yes, even that speech should be protected.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by texassapper

This is pure ignorance and so clearly wrong that anything you write from this point forward is garbage.

The militia is: "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

Thanks for playing....

Want a laugh, kids? Go to this page, where the poster got this quotation, and go up to the Home tab. Click and find a welcome from . . . Wayne LaPierre.

Thanks for the comedy.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Sounds like a lot of these spoiled college kids have way too much free time between now and finals. Shouldn't those motherfuckers be studying for finals? Haha

You'd think... my girlfriend is finishing her degree and Graduation is May 10th. She asked me the same thing... I just said they must be studying gender studies or some such crap.

[winn dixie]

Simply don't agree with? Nonsense

When that hate speech is calling for violence and annihilation. That should have major consequences. Good grief

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Simply don't agree with? Nonsense

Yes, nonsense describes your posts.. not the concept o freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by winn dixie

When that hate speech is calling for violence and annihilation.

Calling for violence is incitement... already covered by the law in terms of being able to bring charges.

annihilation? Well now your talking state politics... and that does fall under freedom of speech.. ie "Israel should bomb Gaza!" - that's freedom of speech.
"Hamas should kill the Jews everywhere!" - still freedom of speech
"We should beat the Jews on campus" - Incitement... a chargeable offense

Originally Posted by winn dixie

That should have major consequences. Good grief

Thanks for playing authoritarian for the day

It's amazing to me that the liberals of my Childhood supported the Nazis in Skokie, and are now arguing for the opposite. The liberals became Nazis so slowly I didn't notice.

[winn dixie]

Well we'll well. How do the hamas supporters feel now?
Guns and weapons found. Outside agitators been confirmed. Many campuses have many folk being arrested who have zero to do with the school.
Assaults and destruction of property.
Should all this still be protected free speech?
Law enforcement not allowed to do their jobs in many places.
In austin the da office is bitching about the extra case work. Also austin let the 1st round of arrests go without charges.
1st amendment needs an overhaul with real consequences. Make the courts back law enforcement.
Give law enforcement their ability to do the job, back.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Ever hear the phrase "endowed by their creator"?
And rights needs no quotation marks.

Whose creator? You obviously aren't putting things in context. The founding fathers were revolutionaries nearly 4 centuries ago. Today, they're mere excuses for MAGAs to abuse the "rights" of others.

If this was such a perfect document, why has it been changed so many times?

Not at all connected to religion, God or any other dogmatic mumbo jumbo.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Whose creator? You obviously aren't putting things in context. The founding fathers were revolutionaries nearly 4 centuries ago. Today, they're mere excuses for MAGAs to abuse the "rights" of others.

If this was such a perfect document, why has it been changed so many times?

Not at all connected to religion, God or any other dogmatic mumbo jumbo.

Nonsense. What do you think creator means in context? Cleary any entity that created the human race could/would/should be considered a god, whichever one you might choose. To deny that is what the founders meant is ridiculous. And the founders being revolutionary has no bearing on them being religious or not. The founders claimed that man's rights are god given because rights given by men can also be taken away by men.

Who here said that the document is perfect? Certainly not I.

[Yssup Rider]

But what if you don’t believe in creation? You are guaranteed that “right” too.

What do you suppose the founders would have written today?

It would reflect the morality of the times. 250 years from now will people share those morals and values?

It’s the homeowners association handbook for the US and you’re trying to keep horse troughs on the streets because that’s how they did it in the 1780s.

Silly and lazy at the same time

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But what if you don’t believe in creation? You are guaranteed that “right” too. Yes

What do you suppose the founders would have written today? Pretty much the same as then.

It would reflect the morality of the times. 250 years from now will people share those morals and values? It's not about morals. No mention of morals. Origin isn't a morality issue

It’s the homeowners association handbook for the US and you’re trying to keep horse troughs on the streets because that’s how they did it in the 1780s. Bullshit

Silly and lazy at the same time More bullshit

This thread only discusses the first ammendment. You haven't a clue how I feel about the others. You haven't a clue at all.

[Tiny]

Here's the text of the First Amendment:

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.

At the time, that must have been ground breaking. I doubt any other country adhered to that high a standard of freedom and liberty. And many, including democracies, don't today. The United Kingdom does not.

Nazis had the right to march in Skokie. Communists in New York City. And Martin Luther King and other defenders of civil rights in Washington, D.C. We may agree or disagree with their beliefs and causes. But we should continue to guarantee they can peacefully and lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights.

I respectfully submit to my friend Winn Dixie that no changes are needed to the First Amendment. I imagine he's right though, that some state and local laws should be changed to allow law enforcement to do its job when protests and the like get out of hand. As Eyecu2 rightly says, the First Amendment doesn't give people carte blanche to "block access or traffic or common spaces without any other options....takeovers and all that shit-...sorry now you're using your rights to take away other ppls rights to access also."

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Here's the text of the First Amendment:

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.

At the time, that must have been ground breaking. I doubt any other country adhered to that high a standard of freedom and liberty. And many, including democracies, don't today. The United Kingdom does not.

Nazis had the right to march in Skokie. Communists in New York City. And Martin Luther King and other defenders of civil rights in Washington, D.C. We may agree or disagree with their beliefs and causes. But we should continue to guarantee they can peacefully and lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights.

I respectfully submit to my friend Winn Dixie that no changes are needed to the First Amendment. I imagine he's right though, that some state and local laws should be changed to allow law enforcement to do its job when protests and the like get out of hand. As Eyecu2 rightly says, the First Amendment doesn't give people carte blanche to "block access or traffic or common spaces without any other options....takeovers and all that shit-...sorry now you're using your rights to take away other ppls rights to access also."

Those who think that The Bill of Rights are antiquated ideas that should be changed to reflect “modern ideas” need only to look at the behavior of todays Democrat/Progressive/Socialist who are in positions of authority to realize that we need them more now than ever.

[texassapper]

Modern Democrat/Progressives/Socialists don't believe in God or a Creator and so they think that man can be perfected... all we need is the right set of rules and leaders and the world will be Utopia. And Gosh darn it, wouldn't you know it, the right set of leaders is THEM and they know EXACTLY what you and I need to do to make the world better.

Well Bless their Hearts...

And I should add the Republicans are no better on this topic. That piece of crap legislation they just approved as an anti-semitism bill? WTF?

You can burn the US flag, but not Israels because that'd be anti-semetic?

Those Republicans that approved can Fcuk right off.