[QUOTE=lant3rn;3057430]I hope so, it feels a bit wrong to alter such an iconic statement
Freedom of Speech is an important concept, probably why the First Amendment was the first amendment.[/QUOTE]
To those who think freedom of speech was chiefly on the minds of the founders, here’s a little reality check:
1A was the third amendment, but the first one that passed and was ratified.
Article the First was to limit the size of representation, so as to make the whole mess more democratic. We’re still waiting on that mess to resolve. https://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
Article the Second (congressional pay) didn’t get ratified until 1992.
[QUOTE=Nutcracker, sweet!;3057658]To those who think freedom of speech was chiefly on the minds of the founders, here’s a little reality check:
1A was the third amendment, but the first one that passed and was ratified.
Article the First was to limit the size of representation, so as to make the whole mess more democratic. We’re still waiting on that mess to resolve. https://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
Article the Second (congressional pay) didn’t get ratified until 1992.[/QUOTE]
Ironically, I believe the only mention of free speech in the Articles of Confederation was specifically for Congressional debate, and to protect reps from being taken to court for what they said during debates.
By the time the Constitution replaced the AOC, Europe was well ahead of the early US with respect to laws protecting freedom of speech. England, France, Italy all had codified free speech by then, from the works of people like John Milton.
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057666]Ironically, I believe the only mention of free speech in the Articles of Confederation was specifically for Congressional debate, and to protect reps from being taken to court for what they said during debates.
By the time the Constitution replaced the AOC, Europe was well ahead of the early US with respect to laws protecting freedom of speech. England, France, Italy all had codified free speech by then, from the works of people like John Milton.[/QUOTE]
More likely, they took these things as “self evident,” as presented in Declaration. It took them a while to figure out that “hey, we should probably codify this shit, because the next gen will fuck it up.” By then, it was approaching “too late.”
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057666]Ironically, I believe the only mention of free speech in the Articles of Confederation was specifically for Congressional debate, and to protect reps from being taken to court for what they said during debates.
By the time the Constitution replaced the AOC, Europe was well ahead of the early US with respect to laws protecting freedom of speech. England, France, Italy all had codified free speech by then, from the works of people like John Milton.[/QUOTE]
Didn’t the UK recently send someone to jail for teaching his girlfriend’s pug to do a Nazi salute as a joke?
[QUOTE=Nutcracker, sweet!;3057667]More likely, they took these things as “self evident,” as presented in Declaration. It took them a while to figure out that “hey, we should probably codify this shit, because the next gen will fuck it up.” By then, it was approaching “too late.”[/QUOTE]
Adams, Jefferson, and others were adamant Milton afficianados. You can literally trace connecting points between The Declaration, the Constitution, and Paradise Lost., which was still a relatively young work of philosophy at the time.
[QUOTE=ghost55;3057677]Wow. Powerful free speech right there. If we fined you $1000 every time you were painfully unfunny you would have more debt than fucking DMX.[/QUOTE]
One common point between the AOC and the Constitution is equal treatment under the law. Which completely obliterates the idea that the US was any sort of free speech leader when considering slavery, religion, female subjugation, etc.
You know slavery ended in Britain 30 years before the US Civil War, peacefully, right? Slaves didn’t even have the right to be people for 400 years in America. No voices at all.
Free speech in America wasn’t really possible until the 1960’s at the earliest, when minorities began freely expressing their rights. Because of hippies and civil rights.
And speech can’t be used to terrorize Scottish Jews with “lulz”. That’s what the fine was about. Dankula has been unsuccessfully appealing and wasting tax dollars ever since.
He lives on the dole, too. Total government leech.
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057681]One common point between the AOC and the Constitution is equal treatment under the law. Which completely obliterates the idea that the US was any sort of free speech leader when considering slavery, religion, female subjugation, etc.
You know slavery ended in Britain 30 years before the US Civil War, peacefully, right? Slaves didn’t even have the right to be people for 400 years in America. No voices at all.
Free speech in America wasn’t really possible until the 1960’s at the earliest, when minorities began freely expressing their rights. Because of hippies and civil rights.
And speech can’t be used to terrorize Scottish Jews with “lulz”. That’s what the fine was about. Dankula has been unsuccessfully appealing and wasting tax dollars ever since.
He lives on the dole, too. Total government leech.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure he makes a decent amount of money from ad revenue and patreon. I don’t particularly like him but your constant defense of the UK’s lack of real free speech is fucking disgusting. You know what a super injunction is there? It’s a civil court order that not only stops the media from reporting on a topic, but it restricts them from even being able to say they are under injunction as well.
Also if you want another case of how shitty it is: the guy that fought off a knife wield terrorist with his bare hands was arrested and being forced to attend diversity training because he said mean things about Muslim immigrants on Facebook. Wonder why he might feel that way. Perhaps getting stabbed with a chef’s knife after watching a bunch of people get run over had something to do with it…
[QUOTE=ghost55;3057682]Pretty sure he makes a decent amount of money from ad revenue and patreon. I don’t particularly like him but your constant defense of the UK’s lack of real free speech is fucking disgusting. You know what a super injunction is there? It’s a civil court order that not only stops the media from reporting on a topic, but it restricts them from even being able to say they are under injunction as well.
Also if you want another case of how shitty it is: the guy that fought off a knife wield terrorist with his bare hands was arrested and being forced to attend diversity training because he said mean things about Muslim immigrants on Facebook. Wonder why he might feel that way. Perhaps getting stabbed with a chef’s knife after watching a bunch of people get run over had something to do with it…[/QUOTE]
Lol well he’s definitely not using Hatreon anymore, since VISA proved the free market system works well against anti-Semitism.
He only makes money because of idiots who think he’s funny. He’s not a free speech advocate or anything, he’s a societal tick.
He’s not really worth anyone’s money. If you love him so much, feel free to fund his lunch money.
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057683]Lol well he’s definitely not using Hatreon anymore, since VISA proved the free market system works well against anti-Semitism.
He only makes money because of idiots who think he’s funny. He’s not a free speech advocate or anything, he’s a societal tick.
He’s not really worth anyone’s money. If you love him so much, feel free to fund his lunch money.
Fool and his moneys.[/QUOTE]
>If you love him so much
I literally said I don’t much care for him in the comment you quoted. We don’t decide what speech is protected based on your perceived value of the speech in question. That God for that. Free speech isn’t just speech that you agree with. By that logic North Korea, China, and Iran have free speech as people are free to say things the government agrees with at all times. Also you didn’t address the other bits of my comment. I see you and your bullshit.
I literally said I don’t much care for him in the comment you quoted. We don’t decide what speech is protected based on your perceived value of the speech in question. That God for that. Free speech isn’t just speech that you agree with. By that logic North Korea, China, and Iran have free speech as people are free to say things the government agrees with at all times. Also you didn’t address the other bits of my comment. I see you and your bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Of course I’m not going to address your herrings, especially since it’s “mean things about Muslim immigrants” and not a direct quote. So post the quote or that’s that.
As far as your false statement that the UK doesn’t protect free speech, I think your trolling is a little overt at this point. I’m sure the UK Bullies will love to chat about this further with you.
Then I remind myself you are have such a strong anti-government bias, you probably would prefer the AOC to the current Constitution.
Some day when you’re old and gray and realize the State isn’t out to get you (here, or in the UK) you’ll sleep a lot easier.
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057686]Of course I’m not going to address your herrings, especially since it’s “mean things about Muslim immigrants” and not a direct quote. So post the quote or that’s that.
As far as your false statement that the UK doesn’t protect free speech, I think your trolling is a little overt at this point. I’m sure the UK Bullies will love to chat about this further with you.
Then I remind myself you are have such a strong anti-government bias, you probably would prefer the AOC to the current Constitution.
Some day when you’re old and gray and realize the State isn’t out to get you (here, or in the UK) you’ll sleep a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
You’re problem is that you are a dedicated bootlicker. You seem to constantly defend government encroachment against civil liberty. You’ve defended NJ/NY gun control in the past and now you’re defending the country with the most restrictions on speech in Western Europe. Fuck, if the cops in the UK illegally search you and find something the fact that the search was illegal has zero bearing on the outcome of your criminal case. Think about that for a minute.
[QUOTE=ghost55;3057688]You’re problem is that you are a dedicated bootlicker. You seem to constantly defend government encroachment against civil liberty. You’ve defended NJ/NY gun control in the past and now you’re defending the country with the most restrictions on speech in Western Europe. Fuck, if the cops in the UK illegally search you and find something the fact that the search was illegal has zero bearing on the outcome of your criminal case. Think about that for a minute.[/QUOTE]
Dedicated shit-kicker maybe, in the Kentucky bluegrass sense. You couldn’t fit in my boots if you started curling with your toes in the squat rack.
Now the UK is “the country with the most restrictions on speech in Western Europe.”
Listen, right dog, wrong tree. I defended Richard Spencer’s rights on Bullshido, and lost FB friends over it. You defending Dankula and the entire Lulz Industry is misguided and self-destructive to democracy.
[QUOTE=Ice Hole;3057694]Dedicated shit-kicker maybe, in the Kentucky bluegrass sense. You couldn’t fit in my boots if you started curling with your toes in the squat rack.
Now the UK is “the country with the most restrictions on speech in Western Europe.”
Listen, right dog, wrong tree. I defended Richard Spencer’s rights on Bullshido, and lost FB friends over it. You defending Dankula and the entire Lulz Industry is misguided and self-destructive to democracy.[/QUOTE]
Richard Spencer is definitely worse than some fat Scottish guy making shitty YouTube videos. I bet you proudly and unironically identify as neoliberal.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen wabbit complain about government overreach. Every time the topic comes up he’s defending the infringement of the day as “necessary” and “really not that bad.”
[QUOTE=ghost55;3057708]I don’t think I’ve ever seen wabbit complain about government overreach. Every time the topic comes up he’s defending the infringement of the day as “necessary” and “really not that bad.”[/QUOTE]
You just have an extremist position on freedom, typical to your age group.
I went through a similar phase, but that’s all it was.
But if you’re going to take fringe opinions like the two I’ve quoted in red, then I’m going to try to hammer some sense into you every time.
[QUOTE=ghost55;3057703]Richard Spencer is definitely worse than some fat Scottish guy making shitty YouTube videos. I bet you proudly and unironically identify as neoliberal.[/QUOTE]
No, they are both equally worthless and useless, but you’re defending one that got a fine for terrorizing Scotland’s Jewish population using public communication, and I defended the one that got assaulted on live TV for no real reason other than somebody walking by hated him.
I identify as a Wood Rabbit, and you identify as some 55th Ghost. What’s in a name?