x_x - I don't remember saying I don't believe in a God or Gods? You've made an assumption based on limited information and extrapolated. That seems familiar as you do that constantly across every thread you spew your hatred across. Cheese - i certainly haven't followed the story in any detail so can't fact check for you in terms of what was said and done. I will point out that the police officers did ask him to move along for "breaching the peace" as it were. It also, to me, seems irrelevant that it was churchill's words. If he said those things without that then people wouldn't bat an eye. Taking anything out of the time in which it was reason can be insulting today. Take slavery in the states. If I found a quote of Lincoln saying " the only thing that black people are good for is serving the white man" then repeated it in public over and over then I would expect to be arrested. Regardless of their source, it simply isn't ok as it causes offence!
If you believe that there is a country in existence without censorship you do truly show your ignorance.
Xx does it not occur to you that we see your constant telling us what we should and should not believe, read and do as a form of harassment. You constantly belittle others if they disagree with you and claim to have a superior intellect ( which is debatable ) Sure you may be well read in certain subjects. But you harrass others just as much as you claim to be harrassed. You constantly claim to be the victim where you have admitted loving instigating arguments on here. So it does not work. You are not a victim. You are the aggressor much of the time amd deliberately try to bait people. And when you play the victim you threaten to sue the devs, that have given you a platform to spout your anti government propaganda. So fine i dont like you. Thats my right. You have given me no reason to. And your threads inspire hate. So please whatever you do. Don't keep crying the victim. When you deliberately cause so much animosity.
Wait? So providing a different point of view on a basis of devils advocacy means I must believe it? Try harder.
Adults are not children. The whole concept of oppression is one of subjectivity. Who decides what "is in the best interest?" Even the definition of "terrorism" is being stretched inside the US to include legitimate political dissidents. Restricting speech - in any amount - is oppression.
We will have to agree to disagree, friend Arresting someone for speech, no matter how "offensive" is tyranny. Who decides what's "offensive?" Just about anything can be "offensive" given the right context. Therefore it has a chilling effect. I believe the answer to uncomfortable or offensive speech is sane speech from the person being "offended." The fallacy that's made in this argument by proponents of suppression of "offensive" speech is that it will somehow lead to physical harm. The truth is there's no basis for this argument that I'm aware of. Besides, physical violence is already criminal, so there's no point punishing speech that might theoretically lead to violence. If the punishment of physical criminal acts isn't a deterrent enough, how would criminalizing speech be a deterrent. See? The logic doesn't support suppressing speech.
Whilst i agree in Principle cheese My issues would have to be recently here we have had a Woman murdered by a woman who stated in front of police that she was going to murder the another woman. They did not arrest her at the time for threatening behaviour, which is a crime here. And as such the lady despite being escorted home was then free to return two hours later amd murder the woman. Another example would be hate preachers who radicalise people. They incite acts of terrorism and the deaths of many innocents. For years before new laws were introduced they used freedom of speech to call for the deaths of people in their host nation. They incited murder. Not all words no matter how ideal a world we live in can be taken innocently. We need accountability, and that has to be proportionate to the threat presented and the intent of what was said. As much as freedom of speech is admirable in an ideal world. As you know well enough it isnt. And it is a credit that you seek such freedoms. However even the 1st amendment makes allowance for peaceably assembling and consulting. Though the context of freedom of speech is written in Accordance to addressing concerns against the state. The intent is clear that there would be restrictions on non peaceful speech. With religous freedoms again the 1st amendment cites "officers interfere when religous principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order". And i am certain that calling for the deaths of infidels or women that burst footballs ( yes that is why the woman was murdered ) contravene those intended articles. Even when a nations founding principle is freedom. There must be an acceptance and an ability that not all people seek to live within the confines of your society or of your morality. The government must be willing and prepared to deal with all transgressions as appropriate. As much as things have changed since the founding fathers, the intent that people should be responsible and accountable for their actions and their words, and in some cases the actions that result as a direct response to those words still holds true today. Unfortunately not everyone wants to live in a civilised peaceful world.
Nothing has changed since our founding fathers wrote the constitution except that the government has taken for itself the power to punish theoretically possible crime before it happens.
Personally if someone stands on a street cirner saying death to all infidels. I am quite content with them being locked up. If that had been done a few more times recently many people would not have died for nothing. And the ability of man to kill more efficiently has certainly changed. Bit otherwode you are correct not much has changed. Amd thats why the 1st amendment made sure to offer certain limitations om freedoms of speech. To ensure there is some accountability as should still be the case today.
What limits to the first amendment are present in the constitution? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It says right there in plain English that the government isn't allowed to pass ANY law restricting or limiting freedom of speech.
But the Constitution itself already shows the difference between speech and acts. For example, telling an enemy a war strategy would be considered giving aid to an enemy and treason under Article III. That is probably one of the reasons the First Amendment has always been interpreted as distinguishing between speech and acts (such as threats and incitement).
A lot has changed since your founding fathers crafted the constitution; America is no longer a literal frontier, why should it operate using laws designed for one?
Did you really just cite Alaska as the sole reason for the continuation of following the constitution?
Can we note here that the Bill of Rights initially only applied to the Federal government, and did not apply to the states - meaning the states could pass any type of speech prohibitive laws. Until selective incorporation, the Bill of Rights was largely irrelevant to most Americans. Actually, that is quite a change from early America.
Just researched the Marriage Act of 1949 for x_x. Which pillar of communism calls for the consolidation of previously enacted rules regarding solemnizing marriages under one act. How dare we consolidate!