Page 1 of 1

Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:22 pm
by Alael

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:18 pm
by atilliar
That's more than an attack. That might as well have been a repeal of the first amendment altogether. After all the first amendment wasn't put in place so we can talk about the weather. It was put there so we can show our grievances with our government.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:35 pm
by Blaubart
Yeah, this is a bad law. I can't see it standing up to any sort of challenge in court.

If it's actually used to throw someone in jail, then I'm hoping for widespread rioting, because I don't want to be the only one out there.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:51 pm
by johndoe3
It's an outrage that it passed with bi-partisan support in the Congress. If it stands, I can see Mayors and City Councils emulating it and forbidding speech critical of their fascist agendas. In Colorado we've had "imperial" City Councils try to muzzle citizens speaking out against them.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:37 pm
by calinb
atilliar wrote:That's more than an attack. That might as well have been a repeal of the first amendment altogether. After all the first amendment wasn't put in place so we can talk about the weather. It was put there so we can show our grievances with our government.
And the Second amendment wasn't put there for hunting, sport, or even personal protection, but the U.S. Constitution is now a dead letter! Note how this new law is designed to infringe on "We The People's" First and Second Amendment rights at the same time. It creates felons out of people exercising free speech, thus stripping them of their arms too!
Blaubart wrote:Yeah, this is a bad law. I can't see it standing up to any sort of challenge in court.

If it's actually used to throw someone in jail, then I'm hoping for widespread rioting, because I don't want to be the only one out there.
All kinds of infringement of rights protected by the Constitution stands up in court. The Supremes are merely the foxes guarding the Federal hen house! These days, they rarely rule against authoritarian Federal powers in any substantial way.

Sadly, things will probably go along the historical lines of England and Australia, nations of formerly free, self-sufficient, strong-willed and independent people. They all rolled-over. I don't see any reason that people here won't do the same. I am sometimes criticized or even censored by other "gun people" for what I say in other forums. I see plenty of evidence supporting a "roll-over" and continuing conversion of free people into serfs here too.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:07 pm
by doubloon

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:55 pm
by TROOPER
The 1st has been used to defend such a wide array of behaviors, to include pornography to T-shirts. I mention that, because banning a "protest", or "suspending free speech" are both terms which encompass such a wide range of behavior that a person with a "Bush & Chenney 2000" bumper sticker could be arrested.

A person with a T-shirt that says the same thing as another T-shirt worn by another person pass each other on the sidewalk... that's two people, that's a protest.

A group of supporters show up to a Romney rally, but the secret service doesn't answer to Romney, it answers to the government which is headed by Obama. Do all of those supporters get arrested and convicted?

Will a campaign button set off a legal explosion?

Will a lone man booing the president from four blocks away get arrested if he's using an abnormally powerful loudspeaker?

What is "in the presence" of Secret Service? Do you have to know they're there? How far is a "presence" denoted as?

If the president's convoy passes a group of protestors that happened to be there by chance, do they all get arrested?

Will Town Hall Meetings require a paddy-wagon?

What is a "protest"? "Mr. President, I don't agree with the policy of... what are you plans about it?" By extension, what if instead of protesting his amnesty stance, you support the current laws on the books? "Mr. President, I support the current laws of illegals being deported, however, if the current law is changed, I will support that as well." You will have just protested the president's decision to ignore the law -- do you get tazed before you get arrested?

If you say something in support of the president, you will have by default protested any stance against his; basically, a pro-Obama rally is almost by default an anti-Romney rally. Could agreeing with the president be misconstrued as protesting the opposition? If so, making any sort of political comment in the undefined "presence" of an agent, who's very name indicates that he is hidden, becomes an arrestable offense.

Can Romney make protesting statements in the presence of his own candidate SS detail? If so, why is he exempted? Because he's government? Can any government official be exempted from this? What is "government", is a Post Office clerk exempt?


This thing is full of so many holes that it should be unenforceable, and nullified, on the spot. Let alone the fact that it is directly contrary to the very definition of the 1st, in that "free speech" isn't a right so much as a protection from the government.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:10 pm
by calinb
TROOPER wrote: This thing is full of so many holes that it should be unenforceable, and nullified, on the spot. Let alone the fact that it is directly contrary to the very definition of the 1st, in that "free speech" isn't a right so much as a protection from the government.
As with all laws, if a cop somewhere is willing to arrest someone or even hassle them, that's enforcement. Even if a defendant "wins" their "day in court," they have not won, but are nearly always paying considerable money, time, personal strife--even paying with a loss of job and a ruined life, perhaps. Given the way plea bargains work (charges are jacked-up and trumped-up to elicit the lower risk plea response from the defendant) few people will risk it all and fight.

Re: Attack on the First Amendment

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:37 am
by Blaubart
TROOPER wrote:What is "in the presence" of Secret Service? Do you have to know they're there? How far is a "presence" denoted as?
By its nature, the Internet is everywhere. What you're saying right now is "in the presence" of a Secret Service agent somewhere.