Aboloshing the first amendment?

[DanieltheDragon]

Some people do not like the first amendment that protects freedom of religion and freedom of press.

What happens to Atheists, non-theists, Hindus,Muslims, and Jews in this vision of America?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to JP Cusick]

My point is that getting a violent response from hateful provocation is the normal healthy and expected human thing to do.

That is your opinion. A violent response is not normal or healthy, especially in adults.
Children are given Leeway because they lack the emotional maturity to control their responses. Backed up in biology by the developing brain specifically in underdeveloped amygdalas which is associated with impulse control and emotional response.

We are the most advanced species in terms of social development and ability a violent response is not required as a social function.

You continue to assert your not promoting violence, but from what I see you seem to find violence perfectly acceptable to serve your purposes. This is ideologically similar to many extremist groups.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 70 by JP Cusick]

go onto Facebook then they do not allow hateful comments or ugly dirty words or pictures, because free speech on Facebook would be harmful to the public.

It's not about being harmful to the public it is about the bottom line economically. They do allow hateful comments dirty words and pictures though albeit with some caveats.

[JP Cusick]

At last I see this topic as basically dead, especially since there is nothing that can be done to correct the problem.

I appreciate that I was able to make my point, and now it is time to move on.

And for the record = My words here were not free speech because mine were not provocative, was not offensive, was not hateful, so mine was not protected speech.

The only free speech - protected by the force of law - is always and is only offensive speech intended to provoke the negative feelings in others.

Mine was an attempt to enlighten any who might be.

So yes I am quitting this thread with this my last provocation.

[Kenisaw]

There were coups and revolutions and overthrowing of government long ago and many times in Ancient Egypt, in Greece, in the Roman Empire, and even the US war of independence came long before there ever was a 1st Amendment.

Humans have the ability to speak and it is not a RIGHT given by the USA.

But it is a right protected so that we can enjoy that right. It is a right we can openly enjoy and use without fear of retaliation or repercussion by the government we have in this country.

Someone already explained it quite well, but it needs to be reiterated to you, that the 1st Amendment does not grant freedom speech, it protects that right from governmental intrusion. Big difference which I feel you do not seem to understand.

All the 1st Amendment does is protect hate speech and dirty speech by the force of law.

Nothing wrong with hate speech and dirty speech. You don't get to decide what is and isn't appropriate speech. You say up above that humans have the ability to speak and already have that right, then you turn around and want to declare what is and isn't OK? Not your job buddy. You don't get to tell me or any other human being what they can and can't say.

And even if dirty and hateful speech were made illegal then people would still be able to speak it, and they surely would continue speaking their garbage, but if it were illegal then we could take it off of TV and out of public display.

I find all christian evangelical shows to be hate speech. Can we take those off the air and out of public display?

[Kenisaw]

At last I see this topic as basically dead, especially since there is nothing that can be done to correct the problem.

I appreciate that I was able to make my point, and now it is time to move on.

And for the record = My words here were not free speech because mine were not provocative, was not offensive, was not hateful, so mine was not protected speech.

The only free speech - protected by the force of law - is always and is only offensive speech intended to provoke the negative feelings in others.

Mine was an attempt to enlighten any who might be.

So yes I am quitting this thread with this my last provocation.

For the record, your words were hateful, provocative, and offensive to me. So your speech was protected speech. But UNLIKE you I do not propose to restrict you from saying your hateful, provocative, offensive words, because I understand that there is no such thing as a right that excludes people...