Do you think that the founding fathers created the first amendment because they thought, "hey, 200 years from now people online will need to be obnoxious buffoons without any consequences"?
The American Founders created the First Amendment because they understood that there is nothing you can say that's more dangerous than the act of silencing people. When people can speak their minds, there is the possibility that they will understand each other. Through mutual understanding, maybe people will even come to respect each other. And when people don't agree on an issue, there is no confusion over what the disagreement is about.
Speaking of confusion, one of the things I've been noticing lately is the news referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants," just... immigrants. Well fu*k, Melania Trump is an immigrant, why would the President want to crack down on immigrants? Oh, you mean foreigners who broke the law to enter the country without any kind of vetting to see whether they're dangerous or not. How about "foreign intruders"? Seems like a more accurate description to me, certainly more accurate than "immigrants." My parents were immigrants, LEGAL immigrants who were law abiding citizens - educated, honest, productive members of society. To lump them together with a bunch of criminals is just wrong, and it's the worst kind of wrong... FACTUALLY INACCURATE.
But this is what happens when you limit free speech, the lies start creeping in... little by little... until everything you say is a lie. Because friends, the truth is ugly and painful, reality isn't always nice. If you want to make people hate you, tell them the truth. Lies are pretty and sweet, they always tell you exactly what you want to hear, but they mislead you. They mis-lead you, they lead you places you never intended to go and don't want to be.
Melania is from Slovenia, not Russia. She and her modeling agent at the time both claim she was on an H-1B visa which is what modeling agencies use when they do shoots of foreign models, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
"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 first amendment was created to prevent the government from passing laws that limit free speech, from punishing and imprisoning people because of what they say or what they write (which routinely happened in other countries at the time and still does in many modern nations). It was not designed to eliminate all social consequences for what people say or to prevent private institutions and websites from setting their own policies about what's acceptable within their domains.
That certainly seems to be the understanding of the 1st amendment that a lot of twits have, especially those who view a disagreement as a violation of MAH FREEZE PEACH.
The 1st amendment's interpretation has been clarified since it was created, but it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what you say nor that online platforms must guarantee the right of anyone to say anything on said platform.
The First Amendment sets clear limits on government power with regard to speech and religion. While the First Amendment has remained unchanged since its ratification, with the rise of Progressivism, actions taken by all three branches of government have worked to undermine it. As a result, government today is able to exert an ever-growing control over the lives of American citizens.
They knew human nature well enough to foresee the continued march of stupidity. I don't believe they said anything about a lack of consequences, but I could be wrong.
Yes, but not without consequence. Some of them (Adams and Jefferson specifically) used newspapers (their equivalent to social media) to be obnoxious trolls, they went well beyond protected speech, delving into outright slander.
To your point, I think they realized there are consequences. I think they just preferred the people, not govt., dictate the consequences. Allowing govt. to decide the consequences would be more than a small conflict of interest.
The 1st Amendment does not apply online. People are routinely censored online arbitrarily.
The American Founders created the First Amendment because they understood that there is nothing you can say that's more dangerous than the act of silencing people. When people can speak their minds, there is the possibility that they will understand each other. Through mutual understanding, maybe people will even come to respect each other. And when people don't agree on an issue, there is no confusion over what the disagreement is about.
Speaking of confusion, one of the things I've been noticing lately is the news referring to illegal aliens as "immigrants," just... immigrants. Well fu*k, Melania Trump is an immigrant, why would the President want to crack down on immigrants? Oh, you mean foreigners who broke the law to enter the country without any kind of vetting to see whether they're dangerous or not. How about "foreign intruders"? Seems like a more accurate description to me, certainly more accurate than "immigrants." My parents were immigrants, LEGAL immigrants who were law abiding citizens - educated, honest, productive members of society. To lump them together with a bunch of criminals is just wrong, and it's the worst kind of wrong... FACTUALLY INACCURATE.
But this is what happens when you limit free speech, the lies start creeping in... little by little... until everything you say is a lie. Because friends, the truth is ugly and painful, reality isn't always nice. If you want to make people hate you, tell them the truth. Lies are pretty and sweet, they always tell you exactly what you want to hear, but they mislead you. They mis-lead you, they lead you places you never intended to go and don't want to be.
Some might say that your comment is desperate and mean spirited.
I might add ignorant. The first Lady is from Slovenia - about 3,500 from Russia.
Well, aren't you just a geo-political genius!
The European Union will be disappointed to find out that one of its members is a Russian State.
Communist? For sure. That doesn't mean they're Russian.
Seriously Flanders, take a class..... and don't skip!
I think you are confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, Very different counties. Slovenia is like the Switzerland of Eastern Europe.
And don't forget Falnders, NOT Russian!
After that tirade you have to love the first amendment so you can be mean spirited and nasty to your heart's content.
Melania is from Slovenia, not Russia. She and her modeling agent at the time both claim she was on an H-1B visa which is what modeling agencies use when they do shoots of foreign models, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
"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 first amendment was created to prevent the government from passing laws that limit free speech, from punishing and imprisoning people because of what they say or what they write (which routinely happened in other countries at the time and still does in many modern nations). It was not designed to eliminate all social consequences for what people say or to prevent private institutions and websites from setting their own policies about what's acceptable within their domains.
That certainly seems to be the understanding of the 1st amendment that a lot of twits have, especially those who view a disagreement as a violation of MAH FREEZE PEACH.
The 1st amendment's interpretation has been clarified since it was created, but it does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what you say nor that online platforms must guarantee the right of anyone to say anything on said platform.
"Mah freeze peach"
Ha!
No.
The First Amendment sets clear limits on government power with regard to speech and religion. While the First Amendment has remained unchanged since its ratification, with the rise of Progressivism, actions taken by all three branches of government have worked to undermine it. As a result, government today is able to exert an ever-growing control over the lives of American citizens.
They knew human nature well enough to foresee the continued march of stupidity. I don't believe they said anything about a lack of consequences, but I could be wrong.
Yes, but not without consequence. Some of them (Adams and Jefferson specifically) used newspapers (their equivalent to social media) to be obnoxious trolls, they went well beyond protected speech, delving into outright slander.
To your point, I think they realized there are consequences. I think they just preferred the people, not govt., dictate the consequences. Allowing govt. to decide the consequences would be more than a small conflict of interest.