More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights
"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," said one researcher. "This is a dictator's fantasy."

More than half of Americans believe the First Amendment can go too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment–focused nonprofit.
The survey, released on Thursday, asked 1,000 American adults a range of questions about the First Amendment, free speech, and the security of those rights. Fifty-three percent of respondents agreed with the statement "The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" to at least some degree, with 28 percent reporting that it "mostly" or "completely" describes their thoughts.
Americans were further divided along partisan lines. Over 60 percent of Democrats thought the First Amendment could go too far, compared to 52 percent of Republicans.
"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," Sean Stevens, FIRE's chief research adviser, said on Thursday. "Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator's fantasy."
Further, 1 in 5 respondents said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about losing their job if someone complains about something they said. Eighty-three percent reported self-censoring in the past month, with 23 percent doing so "fairly" or "very" often.
Just 22 percent of respondents said they believed the right to free speech was "very" or "completely" secure. But despite these concerns, over a third said they trusted the government "somewhat," "very much," or "completely" to make fair decisions about what speech is deemed "intimidating," "threatening," "harassing," and "indecent," among other labels.
In all, almost 7 out of every 10 respondents agreed that America is going in the wrong direction when it comes to free speech—though it's not clear whether respondents think our culture and government are becoming too tolerant, or not tolerant enough, of controversial speech.
This latest survey indicates that many Americans are concerned about the security of free speech rights, yet also eager to censor speech they personally find distasteful.
"Americans have little tolerance for certain forms of protected speech and a lot of tolerance for unprotected conduct, when it should be the other way around," Stevens said. "This poll reveals that the state of free speech in America is dire."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Free speech for me but not for thee!
Good thing we have a First Amendment so we can ignore crap polls if we want.
Ignorance is bliss.
It really is a choice between the red pill and the blue pill.
Embrace free speech and witness reality, the truth that might be unpleasant. The unpleasant truth is reality the one we NEED to recognize to get on the right path.
Or like a bigot, mute the reality that you are too soft to recognize. Live your delusional life in the bliss of knowing that you will only learn what those in power will let you learn. God forbid you ever stumble over the truth.
You'd prefer the cyanide pill for Jews.
Fuck off, Nazi. Take a long sleep in your small gas chamber.
Blue pill for you.
As expected, Rob Misek, blue pill vendor.
Here is my one rule; if you’re going to be a Nazi, at least be an interesting Nazi.
He’s just boring.
No you clod, free speech doesn't require me to listen to your bullshit, ponder your bullshit or give it any recognition as anything but the bullshit it is, which I am now doing. Even if that makes you cry.
Spoken like a true bigot.
Cover your ears and eyes.
You do you.
FOAD, pile of Nazi shit.
Refuted!
Refuted
Misek, 1A was made for antisemitic pieces of shit like you; enjoy the protection.
Just a few of the hundreds of jewspaper articles FROM ALL OVER THE US FOR DECADES by Jews long before WW2, falsely claiming to be victims of holocausts and every other possible tragedy to beg for money and entitlements, Palestine, like the lying wastes of skin who fake cancer on go fund me websites today.
Tell me once again that Jews don’t employ fake news to fool Americans and further their own interests at the expense of everyone else.
These are JEWS lying through their teeth, not Nazis.
“ Life for six millions in the shadow of death!…Six millions mean what?…Six million souls, old men, old women, and little children in Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Palestine, Glaicia, Turkey, Syria, Roumania, Greece, and Bulgaria are in imminent danger of starving to death this winter….The responsibility of maintaining life in these six million sufferers rests upon every man and woman in the United States…Helping the Jews in their extremity is not helping the Bolsheviks,” the speaker emphatically declared.”
1919 — Schenectady Gazette, October 16th, 1919, page 15
“Today 6,000,000 Jews Are Facing the Darkest Days Ever Known in the Long History of the Race.”
1919 — Titusville Herald, October 18th, 1919, page 4
“… Jewish Relief Fund…Contribute Today, the Last Day and Help Save From Death Six Millions of Starving People.”
1919 — San Francisco Chronicle, October 19th, 1919, page 18”
Six million Jews in Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Palestine, Turkey and Siberia are dying of starvation….These six million despairing souls are totally dependent on American generosity for the bare necessities of life.”
1919 — The Galveston Daily News, April 5th, 1919, page 5
AMERICANS APPEAL FOR JEWISH REFUGE. The petition, in expressing the opinion of enlightened Christian leadership in the United States, favoring a larger Jewish immigration into Palestine, stressed the intolerable sufferings of the millions of Jews in “the European holocaust.”…to save these unfortunate millions from total annihilation…”
1936 — The Jewish Western Bulletin, June 2nd, 1936, page 3
“Great Britain has it within her power to throw open the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European holocaust.”
1936 — The Montreal Gazette, August 8th, 1936, page 5
Judge Lewis urged American members of the race to swing moral and financial powers into the channels of evacuating some 6,000,000 Jews to Palestine.”
1938 — Turtle Mountain Star, Rolla, North Dakota, October 6th, 1938
“Five or six million Jews, uprooted by dictatorship and tossed about by economic storms, may have to depend upon the development of the Holy Land, under British mandate, as a solution to their difficulties. But they face the hostility of the Arabs living there, whose economic and religious interests conflict with theirs….protects the settlers from the raiding Arabs….The Arabs Are Coming!…The dreaded Mohammedan raiders have been sighted by a neighbor settler…”
1938 — The Times, November 22nd, 1938
Yeah, it was only 4.9 to 5.1 million exterminated. Those schneaky Jewish liars!!
When? Hahaha
Which of the hundreds of claims made by Jews between 1900 and 1945 that 6 million were dying was true?
All of them? That’s a lot of Jews. More in fact than ever existed.
What are the chances that after sooooo many lies, it would come true?
Fucking wastes of skin.
Did 2.5 million exist? Because holocaust revisionists don’t even deny the Einsatzgruppen. It’s too well documented on the Nazi side. And that’s half the #s. It’s only the death camps they quibble with. And routinely change their numbers upwards on that each time they back pedal. Because actually the deportation of Jews to the camps is fairly well documented too. So where did they go, Robert?
Also, the Germans were openly talking about starving way more Slavs in the occupied territories. It’s only the Jews they somehow didn’t have the heart to wipe out?
I’ve demonstrated proof that Jews publicly and routinely falsely claimed to be victims of holocausts hundreds of times BEFORE WW2.
You get that right?
It’s their schtick and is just as popular with lying Jews today.
I have no idea where many jews emigrated to before and during WW2. It’s irrelevant.
They said they wanted 6 million Jews to go to Palestine and I’m sure that a great many made it there and many other places around the world to escape the war they bragged about forcing Germany into.
The Nazi WW2 holocaust is just another Jewish lie, also used by allied propaganda during WW2.
There is no physical proof that Jews were systematically exterminated by anyone ever.
Paid and coerced testimony is considered inadmissible as evidence by any rational judge.
Jews have ensured that any and all objective forensic analysis at EVERY alleged extermination site is ILLEGAL in every nation where such evidence allegedly exists.
Rob Misek "I’ve demonstrated proof that Jews publicly and routinely falsely claimed to be victims of holocausts hundreds of times BEFORE WW2.
You get that right?"
No. YOU get that right. Show me any of your references that claimed that 6 million (or any number) of Jews were actually killed before WW2 vs. being at risk, or just a statement of the Jewish population number.
So a holocaust doesn’t mean dying?
Don’t feel bad, all liars eventually fuck up.
Refuted!
You’re pushing a narrative that holocaust deniers don’t even push.
I’d challenge you to refute something that I’ve said but you obviously don’t know or care what that means.
I’ve refuted that BULLSHIT propaganda story, victim gold card crutch, countless times and to date none of you have ever refuted anything that I’ve said.
There are only two possible explanations for this.
First, I’ve shared the truth that cannot be refuted.
Second, you’re too stupid to refute what you deny.
Which is it?
The following points refute key elements of the embellished WW2 holocaust with logic and science. Truth can’t be refuted.
There has been no objective forensic analysis at any supposed site. There is no physical evidence. Any activity that demonstrates and shares evidence to refute the holocaust is a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred.
The fact that all evidence that refutes the holocaust is criminal in every nation where it allegedly occurred is especially relevant if you are accepting any evidence at all from those nations.
Refusing to consider evidence is the definition of bias, bigotry and a disregard for justice.
Without objective forensic evidence all we have is a story made up of piecemeal recollections of events from paid and coerced fuckwitnesses.
I refute those stories with correctly applied logic and science.
The crucial event of the story is the cyanide gassing of millions of Jews. That couldn’t have happened as claimed. The story is bullshit.
Jews have published books illustrated with pictures of themselves shirtless dragging piles of gassed bodies from the chambers to cremation ovens.
But cyanide is absorbed through the skin and NOBODY could have survived a single day of such activity much less collecting reparations into their old age reminiscing about it years later.
Those Jews lied.
Anyone who ever saw the naked body of somebody who died from cyanide asphyxiation would NEVER forget the red skin colour. The bodies necessary reaction to being unable to process oxygen.
Not a single surviving fuckwitness ever mentioned it.
Also, no dark cherry red skin discolouration was visible in any supposed photographs of bodies of so-called victims of the holocaust.
The fact is that it can’t be explained it and only bigotry prevents you from recognizing the ONLY logical conclusion.
Not a single fuckwitness testimony or alleged photograph of bodies was of anyone who died from cyanide exposure.
So much for the “evidence” of a holocaust.
And so it goes with every bullshit story told by paid and coerced lying Jews. The facts prove otherwise.
Have you ever heard of the Bletchley park decrypts of the famous German enigma machines? It was credited for turning the tide of the war as allies knew what military actions the Germans were planning.
Only released in the 1980s those translated messages included prison camp information, deaths, transfers and requests for medicines to treat illnesses. The numbers of dead don’t support the holocaust narrative of which there was also no mention of.
Here are some actual enigma decrypts from Bletchley park in 1942 when deaths were at their highest.
Covering the period 3rd Aug. 1942 – 25th Sept. 1942
A further examination is made of Concentration Camp figures; deaths from typhus have reached a very high figure in AUSCHWITZ.
A suspected case of typhus is reported from AUSCHWITZ (223b/42). It is probable that on the 6th August Nachschubkdtr. Russland Mitte requests typhus vaccine for 50 men and spottenfever serum for 20
For the first time returns are given for deaths of prisoners (223b/14,24,43,50): the figures for August are: NIEDERHAGEN 21, AUSCHWITZ 6829 (or 6889) men, 1525 women;.
Firstly the number of dead for the month are nowhere near what is necessary to support the holocaust narrative.
Secondly, notable is the concern over typhus deaths and the requests for medical supplies to treat.
Thirdly, are you willing and eager to perform the feeble mental gymnastics required to believe, as the story goes, that Germans were communicating in code about prison camps while talking plainly about their military actions with their top secret enigma machines?
That would require you to really believe that Germany INTENTIONALLY lost the war to cover up the holocaust while ostensibly leaving lying witnesses alive in the prison camps to tell their stories as they retreated.
The contradiction refutes the story.
Let’s not forget another old timey favourite.The story of Babi Yar is a popular lesson in Jewish schools described as the single largest event of the holocaust.
The lesson is that between 30,000 and 100,000 Jews were taken to a ravine in Ukraine where they were killed.
The story is told by one Jewish survivor, Dina Pronicheva, an actress who testified that she was forced to strip naked and marched to the edge of the ravine. When the firing squad shot, she jumped into the ravine and played dead. After being covered by thousands of bodies and tons of earth she dug herself out, unscathed, when the coast was clear and escaped to tell the story.
She is apparently the only person in history to successfully perform a matrix bullet dodge at a firing squad. The soldier aiming point blank at her never noticed her escape. Never walked a few steps to the edge of the ravine to finish her off.
They were stripped naked to leave no evidence. Naked she had no tools to dig herself out from under 30,000 bodies and tons of dirt.
Only after the deed was done, the nazis realized that so many bullet ridden bodies were evidence. Oops, rookie move. So they brought more Jews and millions of cubic feet of firewood to dig them up, cremate them on gravestones and scatter their ashes in surrounding fields.
There has been no forensic investigation at the site. None of the bullets allegedly burned with the bodies have been recovered. Not one shred of physical evidence of this has ever been found.
There are military aerial photographs of the area at the time but they don’t show any evidence of the narrative, no people, no equipment, no firewood, no moved earth, no tracks of any kind.
Simply stating these facts is a crime in Ukraine where the Babi Yar narrative is taught in school.
The numbers of dead from German enigma decrypts does align with Red Cross numbers.
The Red Cross was founded in 1863 with the purpose of protecting the interests of victims of conflicts.
The Red Cross regularly visited all prison camps. It was their job to report the cause of all deaths. They recorded a grand total of 271,000 among all camps for the entire war. It is a matter of record.
The holocaust fairytale requires us to believe that they were so unaware of what might be happening that they completely missed 95% of the victims in prison camps.
AND that they had not so much as an inkling that a holocaust was going on right under their noses even though allied media propaganda was reporting it and it was their sole mission to identify it. Because there is no evidence of any Red Cross document suggesting they did.
Are you performing those feeble mental gymnastics?
Zyklon B is an off the shelf insecticide used for years before and during the war widespread and throughout Europe among other places in Prison camps to delouse clothing and bedding to save lives by preventing deadly typhus. The system employed heating to release cyanide gas, fans to circulate the gas and more to exhaust the chambers to make the de loused articles safe to handle.
Pictures of this equipment and the small de lousing buildings with clothing racks still exist in Prison camps. But no evidence of any gas delivery system has ever been found in the shower houses where the bullshit holocaust allegedly occurred. In fact, the story has changed to that they just threw the heat activated pellets onto the cold drainless floors in rooms full of people.
Such an inefficient method would have taken too long to kill the required number of Jews. The pellets couldn’t be spread evenly in rooms full of people. The cold drainless floors would have delayed the release of cyanide from the pellets that people would have swept away from themselves. Any dead would have released all their bodily fluids and their bodies covering the pellets. Vomit would have been added to the floor prior to entering such a room.
According to the testimony of the so called survivor, the timing entering the chambers immediately, the details shirtless survivor, piles of bodies with unvented cyanide gas pockets in every space between bodies, death from repeated exposure as per testimony would have been necessary, not just possible.
All Jews saying they did that necessarily lied.
According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in “steam chambers,” not gas chambers.
Gasoline engine exhaust contains about ten times the carbon monoxide than diesel. Diesel exhaust is relatively safe. Even if the Diesel engines were running at their maximum of 500 ppm, death would take several hours. Far too long to support the narrative.
If Germans had used gasoline engines, death would have been in a few minutes. But in the holocaust narrative for treblinka diesel was used even though Germany had plenty of gasoline for their tanks. Nuremberg still recorded that they were “steam chambers”.
Somebody is lying. They weren’t both steam chambers and diesel gas chambers. Which stupid lie is more believable? Does it even matter to you?
The story of gassing Jews began as British propaganda to turn popular opinion against Germany. It was inspired to draw attention away from Jewish Bolshevik war crimes in Russia because that would work against allied propaganda. It also served global Jewish interests to create undeserved sympathy for Jews who had publicly organized boycotts of Germany to drive Germany to war.
There is a documented letter from the head of British propaganda to the head of the war office recommending that they cease the “gassing Jews“ propaganda because there was no evidence for it and if found out would work against their propaganda efforts.
Head of British Psychological Warfare Executive (Propaganda), Victor Cavendish-Bentick in a handwritten note, wrote on Aug 27th, 1943,
“We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it? So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.”
Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, ‘Inside the South African Reserve Bank’.
I’ve shown that Jews had been publicly claiming holocausts of 6 million Jews in various nations hundreds of times between 1900 and 1945.
"Anyone who ever saw the naked body of somebody who died from cyanide asphyxiation would NEVER forget the red skin colour. The bodies necessary reaction to being unable to process oxygen."
Most victims of the nazis were worked to death died of starvation or shot. There's plenty of evidence of that.
“Anyone who ever saw the naked body of somebody who died from cyanide asphyxiation would NEVER forget the red skin colour. The bodies necessary reaction to being unable to process oxygen.”
Not necessarily. The skin color could be ashen, as well. The bodies of victims of the nazis were found sometime after their deaths. It is unlikely that any cherry red color would not turn to ashen over time.
"It is important to note that a patient's skin can be a normal or slightly ashen appearance despite tissue hypoxia. Patients with cyanide poisoning will not be cyanotic but will have a cherry red color due to excess oxygen in the bloodstream." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507796/
At issue isn’t that people died in war or in prison camps.
At issue here is the holocaust narrative, the intentional mass extermination of Jews. Of this there is zero physical evidence.
Was your intention to agree with or refute something I said with your quote
“Patients with cyanide poisoning…will have a cherry red color “?
My point was that NONE of the Jewish “survivors” who reported seeing or working with the bodies immediately coming out of the alleged “gas chambers”, NONE OF THEM EVER reported what would be shockingly obvious, cherry red skin colour.
"The Red Cross was founded in 1863 with the purpose of protecting the interests of victims of conflicts.
The Red Cross regularly visited all prison camps. It was their job to report the cause of all deaths. They recorded a grand total of 271,000 among all camps for the entire war. It is a matter of record."
The main mission of the Red Cross was to monitor conditions of POWs. The German branch did what they could with the concentration camps within Germany, but weren't allowed as much, if any access after the extermination order was given in Jan 1942. Even the one "inspector" who was hand-walked through the potempkin village constructed near Auscwitz returned to the ICRC and reported that he doubted that what he was allowed to see was in any way indiciative of general conditions at the larger camps which weren't accessible. I've posted the links to this multiple times as refutation, and if you need to see them again google doesn't discriminate.
The 271k number was the fraction of the prisoners at the camps for whom death certificates were issued (probably only for those in camps inside Germany, and only prior to 1942). There's a reason why the camps which were used for organized extermination were all located in occupied territories such as Poland, Czech, and others.
Besides that, lets imagine for a second that you're the one who's actually informed (as opposed to indoctrinated, as is the norm for those raised within a cult), and the 12 million people who were supposedly killed in the German camps actually weren't killed. Where did they go? Even in groups of hundreds, they'd have been noticed by someone trying to move through occupied territory and combat zones (and if 12 million people snuck out of the camps between 1942 and 1945, there would be more than 10,000 of them doing so every day of that three years) . Where did they all live out their lives unnoticed by anyone (with fewer than 200 countries in the world, and most of Africa or Asia likely not an option, that's a lot of people living completely unnoticed in places where having identifying documents is generally important)? Why did none of them ever attempt to contact friends or family again after 1945; if they're all starting from literally nothing, all at the same time, why didn't any significant number of them reach out for any kind of assistance or even just to re-establish personal relationships after the war ended?.
This it a refutation of your entire premise, because if those millions of people didn't die at the hands of the SS, they have to have gone somewhere else. If they all died of exposure in the forests of eastern Europe, at least some significant portion of their skeletons would have been found (if 90% died out in the woods, there'd still be over 1million refugees to show up somewhere, and almost 11 million skeletons laying around unburied in some condition after the war). For all your denial that any of the mass killings happened, you've never even claimed to have any explanation as to where all those people went, or why none of them were ever seen alive again anywhere on the planet.
Even the people who claim the moon landing was faked have a theory about what happened instead to create the TV footage that was broadcast nationwide.
I already rubbed your face in your lies on many occasions.
The absence of records of where Jews may have emigrated to certainly isn’t proof of a holocaust.
Like the last time you claimed to refute my statement about Red Cross visits.
Your story changed huh.
From:
“January 1942, which was 3 years after the invasion of Poland, and 2 years after the invasion of France, Belgium, and Holland. In an incredible coincidence, the German Red Cross (international Red Cross was never allowed into the country) stopped reporting on the camps starting a few months into 1942. The reason why Red Cross inspectors never saw any evidence of mass exterminations in the camps is that they weren’t allowed access into the camps after the exterminations had begun on a large scale.
To:
“Is the letter you’re referring to in reference to the one-day on which a single inspector was allowed to take a tour (guided by SS Officers) of a “Potempkin village” which had been constructed adjacent to the actual Auschwitz-Birkenau camps during the year of “negotiations” in which the German government delayed even that limited “inspection”?”
The fact is that your own link actually identifies several international Red Cross visits to prison camps including Aushwitz long after you claim “the extermination order” was given.
Your “No” visits changed to “several” international Red Cross visits in which no evidence of any holocaust was found.
You were clearly lying and I refuted your claim.
Reason is still blocking the link to the 1944 report on the Red Cross visit to aushwitz that reported a normal prison camp. Let me be clear, there was no reference to a bullshit jewish “Potemkin” anything.
But pasting the following words into a search bar brings it right up.
“john de nugent red cross 1944”
In your narrative the Germans went to soooo much trouble to hide their holocaust.
Creating fake prison camps no trace of which has ever been found to fool Red Cross inspectors.
Losing the war by feeding deceptive prison camp information along with their actual military plans through what they knew was their decrypted enigma machines.
Then for yet unexplained reasons leaving sooooooo many prison camp witnesses alive to say whatever they wanted when they could have been shot like fish in a barrel.
If saying this wasn’t a crime punishable by imprisonment in every nation where the bullshit holocaust allegedly occurred, the narrative would be globally recognized as the “just another Jewish fraud” it is.
"Your story changed huh."
To go from saying that inspectors weren't allowed to see the real camps, to that the inspector was shown a fabricated "show camp", and filed a report stating that they believed that what they were shown was not indicative of the typical conditions for the people being held in the real camp is not a change; it's an addition of detail as to why the RC inspector who was taken on a guided tour by SS guards of something located near Auschwitz was actually not allowed access to the real camps which your derangement has you thinking were subject to frequent oversight.
It looks like the other "inspections" you think happened in 1944 were one by the German Red Cross (which was subject to censorship and/or control by the Nazi Government) in 1943, and a "follow-up" visit to the Thereisenstadt Ghetto (not the Auschwitz camp itself) in April 1945 which was three months after the Red Army had "liberated" the labor and extermination camps in the complex. Including the guided tour of the cleaned-up ghetto in June of 1944 (having been first requested by ICRC in November of 1943), not one of those three "inspections" involved any visit to the actual concentration camps, and only one was performed by a representative of the ICRC during the time when the extermniation camp was operating for its intended purpose.
Your deranged and addled mis-interpretation proves only that you're committed to pretending that all evidence counter to your indoctrination is something other than what it is. You're refuting nothing except for maybe the idea of your own sanity (if that were ever being considered in the first place).
"Reason is still blocking the link to the 1944 report on the Red Cross visit to aushwitz that reported a normal prison camp. Let me be clear, there was no reference to a bullshit jewish “Potemkin” anything."
That's a risk you take when you rely on dark web servers to source whatever falsified "evidence" you think you're referring to.
"In your narrative the Germans went to soooo much trouble to hide their holocaust.
Creating fake prison camps no trace of which has ever been found to fool Red Cross inspectors."
They didn't construct a "fake camp", They did spend four months on "beautification" of a ghetto in the area near the actual camps.
I'm not sure how it could be said that "no trace has ever been found"; there's literally a memorial erected near the town where it all happened.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Memorial+to+imprisoned+and+murdered+in+Jewish+ghetto+of+Terez%C3%ADn/@50.5071449,14.1010451,9790m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m10!1m2!2m1!1sthereizenstadt+ghetto!3m6!1s0x47097f745cf3be4d:0x78cea3c7643292f8!8m2!3d50.5036471!4d14.1495572!15sChV0aGVyZXNpZW5zdGFkdCBnaGV0dG-SARNoaXN0b3JpY2FsX2xhbmRtYXJr4AEA!16s%2Fg%2F11fqprd21b?entry=ttu
You said,
“ Even the one “inspector” who was hand-walked through the potempkin village constructed near Auscwitz ”
Then you immediately said,
“ They didn’t construct a “fake camp””
You’re both a liar and a fool.
You need to prove that the Red Cross inspector didn’t know the difference between the Aushwitz prison camp and a nearby ghetto.
Yeah, Germans were talking about it, but Eisenhour actually did it. Except that it was Germans he starved,
Wow... Rob Misek would appear to be a hard core Democrat. It's rare to see someone that openly bigoted.
Bigotry is demonstrated by the refusal to consider counter arguments.
You can demonstrate that you’ve considered mine before rejecting them by showing how you’ve actually refuted what I’ve said.
But you won’t because you haven’t, you can’t, because what I’ve said is truth and you’re a bigot.
“Which of the hundreds of claims made by Jews between 1900 and 1945 that 6 million were dying was true?”
Nowhere have you shown any claim that any specific number of Jews were actually killed. Go through your post above and try to find a specific number of Jews actually dead or killed rather than at risk.
“Which of the hundreds of claims made by Jews between 1900 and 1945 that 6 million were dying was true?”
That the nazis killed about 5.6 million Jews along with over 6 million non-Jews. From the Eunsatzgruppen to the work to death camps, nazi murderousness is well-documented, against both Jews and non-Jews. They killed more non-Jews.
The 6 million or so Jews in Europe before WW2 was pretty well known, as your references show. The question is where’d they all go? They didn’t all go to Israel. Considering the numerous reports from U.S. soldiers liberating camps and human remains found overall, the nazis killed a whole lot of people, a large percentage of them Jews.
So a holocaust doesn’t mean dying?
Under the definition used by the ICJ to justify their warrants on Netanyahu and other officials, "Genocide" doesn't necessarily have to involve killing.
"You haven’t disproved my refutation of key elements of the often repeated narrative."
There isn't enough substance in your "evidence" to disprove. You think that just imagining that tens of thousands of first-hand witness reports were all suborned by bribery, or simply made up by those accused in the Nuremberg tribunals who actually hurt their own case with the "following orders" defense which you baselessly insist were all fabricated (for unknown and unknowable reasons by those who would had noting to gain by doing so). There's no substance to your premise, and you use that as "proof" because it's logically impossible to affirmatively refute an unprovable assumption (although by your criteria of "truth", such a claim is a "lie" anyway until it's factually substantiated which your claims are not).
"Photos of bodies are a dime a dozen in wartime. False confessions before a gallows are too. Willing conspirators line up to be paid."
Since you're the one who believes that claims without affirmative proof are lies, I'm assuming you've got the signed reciepts or some other financial records proving that the tens of thousands of people from a dozen different nations, most of whom never met each other were all bribed by the instigators of some global conspiracy?
You claim that the lack of certified DNA evidence proves that 12 million people vanished from the world weren't killed, but expect anyone to believe that thousands were bribed without having to show any proof of your claim?
By your own rules, your claims require no refutation since you've not shown any proof past the suggestion that it's maybe possible. I'd question even the assumption that so many people could have been bribed in such a short period of time, including those who had no use for material wealth in any form.
You idiot.
EVERY witness would either be a survivor paid reparations, only as long as the bullshit narrative is considered true, or their life is in jeopardy as complicit in the bullshit narrative.
No receipts required fuckwit.
Don’t feel badly. All liars eventually fuck up.
What you fail to, and all liars don’t want to recognize is that simply repeating a story isn’t proof of it.
You haven’t disproved my refutation of key elements of the often repeated narrative.
You or anyone else has provided exactly zero physical evidence that Jews were systematically killed anywhere anytime, much less by Nazis in WW2.
Photos of bodies are a dime a dozen in wartime. False confessions before a gallows are too. Willing conspirators line up to be paid.
Not until objective forensic analysis proves or disproves the narrative will any truth improve the correctly applied logic and science I’ve provided.
Jews are preventing that objective truth.
You are quite right. Far too many people choose to ignore reality in favor of living inside a bubble of their own making.
When that bubble is burst, reality is overwhelming.
Liars want, no NEED, to control the narrative.
They’ve almost perfected the manipulation of people, through their strongest emotion, fear. But until they control free speech on the internet, today’s global town square, all their secrets and lies are vulnerable. They are vulnerable.
This is the basis for all corruption on earth.
Criminalize lying, demonstrated by correctly applied logic and science. It’s not protected speech or perjury and fraud wouldn’t be crimes.
First empower everyone to have the inalienable right to record everything they can physically witness everywhere they go, if they want to.
Also, REINFORCE, don’t degrade our inalienable right to free speech and everything that logically means. If a person, business or government agency desires secrecy that’s their responsibility. Nobody can buy or sell YOUR inalienable right.
We can do this. We MUST do this before the corrupt manipulate us into wondering how we lost our rights.
The red pill or the blue pill.
"Or like a bigot, mute the reality that you are too soft to recognize. Live your delusional life in the bliss of knowing that you will only learn what those in power will let you learn."
The irony of someone who was raised in a white-supremacist cult and hasn't been deprogrammed addressing the downside of accepting only what you've been told to believe is almost thick enough to have an event horizon...
Is that how you agree with what I’ve said? Hahaha
It's how I shine a spotlight on your total lack of self awareness.
It fascinates me that for all of the things you've falsely claimed I've "lied" about (based on your bizarro-world concept of what that term even means), you've never once disputed a claim that you grew up and were indoctrinated within a neo-nazi cult in Northern Idaho. Seems like if that were in any way false, you'd have denied it at least once...
Or is that just another thing you're "satisfied with the optics" about?
The optics are demonstrated by the facts.
You’ve fabricated a narrative with zero evidence and are satisfied that it qualifies as truth.
You do you. Fill your boots. Who am I to burst your bubble. Hahaha
"You’ve fabricated a narrative with zero evidence and are satisfied that it qualifies as truth."
You've claimed that thousands of soldiers from the various Allied armies were all "bribed" to give a false account of what they saw while liberating the German camps in 1945, and pretend that disproves their accounts. Yet you've presented no solid evidence of even one single bribe having been paid to anyone anywhere at any time.
I've done nothing more than hold a mirror up you your delusions. Apparently you're looking back through some kind of "funhouse" version if you think the facts favor your alleged "thinking" at any level.
Sort of like the bizarro amalgam of delusion, derangement, and literal fallacies which constitutes the concept you're so fond of calling "properly applied" logic.
Germans lad long left when allied forces showed up to find every living jew that the Germans left alive.
Yet they never took even one photo of any mass death infrastructure.
Just photos of normal prison camps, piles of bodies found in any war, and living prisoners who gave conflicting impossible testimony and have been collecting billions in reparations ever since.
No physical evidence of a holocaust ever existed, then or now.
Amen!
Meanwhile, extremists of a certain political party, AND their Dear Leader, call for (or condone) political violence against those who "speak wrongly"!
Trump offers to pay legal bills for violent offender at Trump rally…
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
Trump’s endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect
Trump agrees with “Hang Mike Pence!”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/donald-trump-january-6-mike-pence-chants/index.html
Trump reacted with approval to ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters on January 6
Sqrlsy, quit sockpuppeting.
Mammary-Necrophilia-Farter-Fuhrer, PLEASE quit Your PervFectly AuthorShitarian, reflexive thugbootery and fascistifying!
It's one of the regular jackasses, because for me, it came pre-muted.
It’s SQRLSY. Verified by muting and unmuting.
It's SQRLSY.
So that means shit's OK to hang Mike Pence, then? Political violence is Blessed, so long ass shit's done by Team Trump? Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!
Get lost, you slimy little Democrat troll!
That doesn't mean the post itself is inaccurate, of course.
^Shitbag in favor of stopped clocks.
No surprises that you and Sqrlsy are of one mind.
Let's Please NOT Hang Mike Pence!, I say, and Marxist Mammary-Farter the PervFect Fuhrer protests and squawks like a chicken!
Hey Marxist Mammary-Farter the PervFect Fuhrer, Let's PLEASE NOT torture and kill the newborn baby Christians, and then drink their blood in Satanic shituals!!! Will You now PervFectly protest and squawk like a chicken at that also? She of the Guilty Mind, perhaps?
In this case both he and I agree with the facts, yes. You prefer that these facts did not exist.
These facts are of the WRONG TRIBE!!!
(In cases like this, those who believe the facts are BEFESTERED WITH COOTIES!!! Do SNOT be befestered with cooties, or else the dog-pile will GET ye!!! Bark-bark-bark, snarl-snarl-snarl!!!!)
“We prefer truth to facts “
- Another moronic leftist.
"facts"
That's a weird way to spell "horseshit". Especially because you two evil clowns both know you're spreading crazy lies.
Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer says that Team Trump SHOULD go right ahead and hang Mike Pence, and ALL others who will NOT obey Der Trumpfen-Farter-Fuhrer! All who will NOT obey are evil LIARS, says Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer!!!
GET LOST YOU SLIMEBAG DEMOCRAT TROLLING TRASH!!
"Lies" - i.e., inconvenient facts.
One article appears to be about self-defense (or using force to prevent assault of another person), the other article is hearsay from a random aide.
What inconvenient fact are you referring to?
Meanwhile, extremists of a certain political party, AND their Dear Leader, call for (or condone) political violence against those who “speak wrongly”!
Trump offers to pay legal bills for violent offender at Trump rally…
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
Trump’s endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect
Trump agrees with “Hang Mike Pence!”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/donald-trump-january-6-mike-pence-chants/index.html
Trump reacted with approval to ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters on January 6
Learn to read a CHAIN of posts, at the ROOT of the chain, chained-"brained" Junk-Brained Wonder Child!!!
THESE are the inconvenient facts!
Between the two of them they barely have one mind.
I'LL TAKE TRUMP OVER THAT WHORE KAMALA HARRIS ANY DAY.
Gosh Shrike, you’re not a fan of the 1st amendment?
Good subjects always defer to the queen.
By Dear Leader you mean the guy who survived an insane detractor's attempt to take his life?
Shitler survived several detractors' attempts to take his life... Shall we now bow and worshit Him and His Mammaries? (I do admit that... Mammaries... Can be BEAUTIFUL!!!, insert music-note symbols here...)
Before we all get too clickbaited... from the survey:
The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 225 years ago. This is what it says:
“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.”
Based on your own thoughts about the First Amendment, can you tell us what you think about the following statement: “The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.”
Does not describe my thoughts at all - 465
Slightly describes my thoughts - 95
Somewhat describes my thoughts - 161
Mostly describes my thoughts - 161
Describes my thoughts completely - 118
So 4 of the options they offered people were "The First Amendment might go too far" and the fifth option was "The First Amendment is just fine." There's not an option of "The First Amendment doesn't protect enough rights."
Framing questions this way is the researchers putting their thumb on the scale.
Yep. And 80% of the multiple-choice answers are 'too many rights!'
I think the question is made to capture the cohort of people who like the 1A but have reservations about it when it gores their sacred cows…. and its basically set to determine how much the 1A bugs people that want their censorship enforced and by how much. The last category would be the self declared free speech absolutists – which the press (ironically) would think of as extremists.
So its actually asking – do you think of yourself as a free speech absolutist and if not, where on the ‘reasonable’ scale are you?
[quotes for ‘reasonable’ because … well, figure it out]
Also, calling them 'researchers' is a bit too generous.
And I would be willing to bet that if you dig into it, there are sample selection issues.
My guess is most respondents who chose “slightly” or “somewhat” thought process was “Gosh, I don’t want to sound too strident, and I don’t like how some people used it against religious/patriotic expression so I’ll say ‘slightly describes’”.
Another guess is that those who chose “mostly” and “completely” are boomers who watch too much CNN or indoctrinated college students.
As a "Boomer' I don't watch CNN. Come to think of it I don't watch any of the news outlets nor do I read the newspapers. Haven't watched any of those "news outlets" for nearly 25 years.
I don't own a TV set, no cell phone.
I don't believe anything the government says and I don't take seriously anything the legacy media says either.
2 easy (and free) steps that improved my quality of life greatly:
1. I stopped watching the local and national news before bed.
2. I immediately turn the channel any time any President of any party appears on TV.
"As a “Boomer’ I don’t watch CNN."
I said "boomers who watch too much CNN", not "all boomers watch CNN".
Should've had a question - polls like these shouldn't be allowed because they give people ideas that just go too far
Or maybe ask the question:
Do you think polls like these are used as tools to
a) promote a narrative favorable to [D] interests
b) used as policy trial balloons to help [D] party triangulate
c) keep damaging (for [R]s) issues in the media for another news cycle
d) gaslight the public IFF it gets the approved results
e) all of the above
…?
(notice that I am not calling for restriction of polling or the reporting thereof, just noting some features of the polling industry and their media codependents )
Very astute!!
As much as I admire FIRE (the organization running the poll) and generally approve of its mission, this is a terrible polling question. As someone who is a bit familiar with aspects of poll design, let me offer a few observations on what will bias answers to this question:
(1) Questions that ask people if they "agree" with a statement are already going have a slight bias. Most people are socialized to be agreeable. If you run two polls on the same group of people, one saying, "Do you agree with X?" and the other saying, "Do you agree with not-X?", you'll get slightly different results. People often feel like they need more justification to "disagree" with someone taking a poll.
(2) My first point is particularly true when, as you rightly point out, there are 4 options to agree somewhat, and only 1 to disagree. The better less-biased way to phrase such answers is with the "strongly agree/somewhat agree/don't have a strong opinion, somewhat disagree/strongly disagree" spectrum.
(3) The one option to disagree is also worded in a strange way: "Does not describe my thoughts at all." Do most people have "thoughts" all the time on the First Amendment? How many people randomly sit around contemplating it on a regular basis? Asking people to quantify their "thoughts" on the matter, when 80% of the choices allow you to agree with some offered statement and the other is, "My thoughts are completely different!" is going to introduce further bias.
(4) The question is LONG. It's often a very bad idea in polling (unless you want to bias the responses) to read a paragraph, then ask, "Do you agree with policy X with respect to that paragraph?" People get lost. They assume there's something in that paragraph that supports the position offered by the question. They don't feel like going back and asking the pollster to repeat the question or read the question themselves again in depth. Yes, it's good that the question actually gives the text of the First Amendment, but it needs to be followed with a free choice option that allows you to agree or disagree with the values of the Amendment itself, not some position statement on it.
(5) A final issue is that the First Amendment packages a whole bunch of rights together. If a reader even slightly disagrees with ONE of them (or, more likely, doesn't understand all of them and assumes the question position of "going too far" must be on to something), they're not going to choose "Does not describe my thoughts at all." For example, do most people really think about the right to "petition" that much? Do they know what exactly that right guarantees in practice? Is it possible that someone who reads this question thinks: "Oh... that damn cat lady down the street is always after me to sign petitions for some stupid thing! I want her to stop bothering me! She shouldn't have the right to come around and bother me!" Or dozens of other possible thoughts that cause them to have some vague hesitance about any of the rights listed in the amendment (even if they misunderstand how they work), and suddenly they're going to say, "Yeah, maybe it goes too far... SOMETIMES...." The better way to poll a multipart set of positions (in this case, rights of the First Amendment) would be to ask individually about them to see where the disconnect is happening.
So yeah, this is truly a terrible polling question, and I'm disappointed in FIRE for writing such a biased question.
What is even worse is that they do this poll every quarter with the same question, and the percentage that say "Does not describe my thoughts at all" is GOING UP! Go to FIRE's website and look at past polling data. In January it was 44%, in April it was 45%, and this time in July it's 47%. That change is probably not statistically significant, but still, the "most Americans" that say that First Amendment supposedly gives "too many rights" is actually GOING DOWN from previous polls in FIRE's own data set!
A more accurate headline here would be: "Nearly half of Americans see through biased poll question and still completely support the First Amendment." And the first sentence of the press release should be: "Despite efforts to design a convoluted question that will maximize the number of people objecting to First Amendment rights, the number of Americans who disagree with our question and continue to express full support of the First Amendment is growing slightly this year."
Final note: I have no doubt that Americans' support of First Amendment rights is lower than I'd personally like. And I do think it is getting worse in recent years. But this kind of poll question is NOT designed to accurately assess that situation.
Most polls are intended to push the intended answer. Rather than merely to discover opinions.
It goes back to why an entity would pay for a poll. They have an agenda before they poll. ‘The poll’ is one of the techniques for selling the agenda. Reinforced by talking about the poll as if the poll is news.
"Most polls are intended to push the intended answer. Rather than merely to discover opinions."
I don't think that's actually true. Again, as someone who has actually designed some surveys and knows quite a bit about the statistics of how these are analyzed, most polls are done privately by various organizations to gauge actual opinions. Most of them never get a press release. Some are used for internal data or information with organizations. There is a reason to gather good data -- for example, if FIRE wants to respond or counter certain narratives about free speech, it would be helpful to know what the public actually believes about it.
You're right that there ARE plenty of organizations that deliberately skew a poll in order to generate a headline. There are also plenty that perhaps don't even realize how biased their questions are.
FIRE is a valuable and good organization, and its campus free-speech survey questions, for example, are generally better written than this question. And those surveys already encounter rather disturbing patterns (like the percentage of college students who think it is okay to suppress speech of some opinion they don't like with violence).
There's no good reason to tip the scales here for a legitimate free speech organization. Support of civil liberties is already low enough without misleading headlines and bad questions tipping the scale.
Note: I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong in this case. I don't know. Maybe FIRE thinks more incendiary headlines will make a better case and cause more people to donate to their cause. But it's truly unfortunate (from my perspective) that they've chosen THIS question to ask quarterly, as it's not a well-written question for an accurate survey. Fluctuations may therefore not accurately reflect what's going on in public opinion. For example, I noted a trend against the narrative of the headline in this article in their polls this year. But aside from the small change (which makes it less likely to be significant), I'm really not sure how shifting numbers here actually would reflect true support of the First Amendment, due to all of the confounding factors in this poorly designed question.
If they are done privately and not for marketing/external/persuasion/management/etc, then sure. But that's not the case here.
for example, if FIRE wants to respond or counter certain narratives about free speech, it would be helpful to know what the public actually believes about it.
Now you are back to an agenda. The agenda is not to find out what people believe but to find out how to deal with or respond to what they believe regardless of what they believed before 'persuading' them to your view. The important thing is the opinion AFTER the manipulation/persuasion not the opinion before (which is when the polling takes place).
eg Edward Bernays 1928 The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind. He polled doctors in order to persuade consumers that Lucky Strikes were 'less irritating to the throat'.
Walter Lippmann (1922) realized that there is no valid public opinion of something without valid access to the information that can form that opinion. That access is not freely available and uncontrolled. There is no such thing as the omnicompetent citizen. So to the degree that the purpose of the poll is to find out anything unknown, the purpose can only be achieved be reducing everyone's opinion to binaries - Yes or No - For or Against. Those binaries are what are then the objects of manipulation in a complex society.
h, I bet it has to do with trending = why keep the stilted, academic wording (and yes, the wording does suck, bigly)
I don't agree with your point #1 above on the agreement scale (pun intended). You actually do want to measure this concept on an agreement scale with respondents, particularly when trending over time.
You were spot on for the other points. I would like to see trending.
You're assuming they want to know what people think.
Their real goal was likely to produce a result that shows there is a sizable constituency to modify the First Amendment.
What a surprise Little Emma chose this ‘survey’ as the basis for her article.
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee a single right, it restricts the government power.
The First Amendment doesn't need to protect every possible right. The Constitution itself does a lot of that, and when they were drafting the "bill of rights", they didn't stop at just one Amendment.
The rights which are protected by 1A are sufficient for one Amendment, unless there can only be one amendment but that isn't the case at all. If we had a government made up of people willing to honor their oath to uphold and protect those rights, we'd be in OK shape. When the people who are supposed to be upholding the laws in the document would rather undermine and "correct" them, that's where we get into trouble.
And thus, the Second Amendment...
I do think the 1st Amendment has been stretched beyond its intended meaning, although I wouldn't complain about where it's gone. Various public behaviors get classified as "expression" to fit under guarantees for speech and the press, because unfortunately we don't have any other tools in either the federal or state constitutions. Church-state separation has grown beyond the literal wording of the 1st Amendment, by which Congress was simply forbidden to meddle one way or another with laws on religion; fortunately the states have adopted their own constitutional provisions disestablishing religions.
Of all the ways we may be said to have a "living Constitution" rather than one of fixed meanings, the developments of the 1st Amendment have been the most benign.
Various public behaviors get classified as “expression” to fit under guarantees for speech and the press, because unfortunately we don’t have any other tools in either the federal or state constitutions.
Can you even provide an example of one of these that you think shouldn't qualify as speech?
Trespassing. Vandalism. For 2.
The left gets away with both constantly.
The econuts shutting down highways or desecration of art and monuments.
That's easy -- strippers, topless dancers, etc. Various decisions have classified some of their acts as "expressive" and deserving of 1st amendment protection, others the opposite. They always draw a very fine line, so contorted that the comparisons make any decent thinker laugh. It ought to be nobody's business, but governments do nothing but mind everybody's business, so they twist and turn and torture simple principles and simple words to get the result of the moment.
I need to remember to close my italics mark-ups. I used to cheat since this site had a somewhat-helpful bug that closed them at paragraph breaks, but it's been fixed.
If freedom was not at stake, and we were just asking about the meaning of words, then for example nude dancing wouldn’t qualify.
Slightly tangentially, many of the US states in their bills of rights have an alternative guarantee of their freedoms of communication, something to the effect of everyone's having the right to express opinions, with responsibiity for the consequences of what they say — which is in some ways more extensive, and other ways less, than the same subject matter in the US Constitution. For a long time, jurisprudence on the freedom of speech and press portion of the 1st Amendment was along those lines. One unfortunate consequence of wording it the way many states do was the PruneYard decision, by which a private entity that supplants the public square may be required to not condition access to private property entirely on its being private property, but must also allow for some access for leafleting, petitioning, etc.
Yes!
I believe it's because when Slaughterhouse gutted the 14th amendment, it went against everything that both pro and con had agreed upon when debating the 14th, in Congress, the press, and debates. But it was years later and no one wanted to be reminded of the Civil War and slavery.
At any rate, rather than walk back Slaughterhouse, the Supreme Court began finding other ways to restore some freedoms, and that's where the 1st Amendment got its mojo.
It is absolutely typical of the US judicial system. They'd rather save face and pretend the are fine tuning precedent than admit a prior court made a mistake.
More interested in ritual than justice.
For what it’s worth, the ‘ritual’ as you call it is the methodology by which justice can be said to be ‘blind’. Without the so-called ‘ritual’ what you end up with more closely resembles rule of man over rule of law.
To be somewhat fair, it can also end up where we are now when we say ‘the process is the punishment’ since every system of rules will inevitably be gamed and our justice system has been gamed for over two centuries now.
Like this ritual?
https://chartertopia.substack.com/p/how-convoluted-can-standing-stretch
Tell me, O wise one, how that or the thousands of other examples are anything but ritual? 27 months just for a federal and a state court to decide which one should take a case. 11 years to settle a Civil War case, and then on spurious grounds.
Justice had nothing to do with it.
Here are some more rituals:
Space-X wasting time with non-endangered animals.
A building which NYC won't let be rezoned, but requires meaningless applications for rezoning every three months.
Seattle "helping" gig drivers by pricing them out of jobs.
United Airlines has to ask "pretty please mother may I" to disable "No smoking" signs in a new airliner, even though smoking has been banned for a long long time.
A tea importation board which took 20+ years to disappear after all funding had been removed.
A prune marketing board which will continue to exist without funding for 7 years.
Tell me how functional this is, how any of it is not ritual for the sake of ritual.
Of course, if you think our legal and regulatory system is actual useful, the only ones that will alarm you is shutting down the tea and prune boards.
Perhaps you ought to consider that no matter how good something is, it can be improved. Or do you think the US legal and regulatory system is perfect?
Your posts might be a little too vague to be useful. When I say 'ritual' I mean rules and laws that govern the nation as opposed to the random diktats of a king. We've seen in the past few years that the 'ritual' I refer to has been twisted or creatively interpreted to mean whatever the prosecutor wants it to mean and damn the plain meaning of those 'rituals' which is NOT favoring the 'ritual' it's actually favoring random diktats and ignoring the so-called 'ritual'.
The "ritual" is starting from a clearly worded, well understood constitutional foundation, then slowly building a cantilevered logical bridge using advanced legalese and tortured reasoning until that bridge can reach to the opposite point of the one the original words were intended for. Then pretending that precedent is more binding than the clear text of the foundational law.
It's not "judicial activism" to blow up the bridges built by judicial activists.
...
The US Contitution was an incredible first draft, truly revolutionary for its time. Unfortunately, the framers didn't take seriously James Madison when he said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Government is just a bureaucracy with no natural enemies except other governments, no way for the people to rein it in other than a single vote every 2 or 4 years.
I don't know nearly enough about European government foibles, other than the EU itself seemingly being designed to be as anti-democratic as possible, as if they did understand Madison and the threat of the peasants having even as little oversight as in the US. I remember as a kid reading the Soviet constitution, wondering how something which seemed to promise even more rights than the US constitution could result is such a dictatorship.
All I really have access to is US legal blogs anyway. It would be interesting to follow some UK ones, except for being so far down the rabbit hole.
Panopticon by 11KBW is my favorite UK legal blog. Very focused on privacy law, though, and thin on anything else.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments cover everything else pretty adequately.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
11. Unless the democrats need to do something, then all bets are off.
The 9th covers hardly anything. It just says you can't use the absence of statement of a certain right to prove the right's nonexistent. However, that doesn't mean no other reason can be found to say that. And then, what evidence can be found that a right existed and that it therefore is retained?
The 10th is potentially much broader, provided you can construe a federal action as pursuant to a particular power. However, it leaves an awful lot of latitude for state action.
"Further, 1 in 5 respondents said they were "somewhat" or "very" worried about losing their job if someone complains about something they said. Eighty-three percent reported self-censoring in the past month, with 23 percent doing so "fairly" or "very" often."
Now do the last step of the math .,. figure out *who* would actually be fired for saying something un-approved. And *what* kind of thing they would be saying.
Case in point - those billboards a few years ago were darkly hilarious. Why yes, you *would* have to "imagine" pretty hard to imagine being fired for "who you love". Because that wasn't happening. It was imaginary.
But you wouldn't have to imagine much at all being fired for saying something *against* those billboards. Because that most certainly would get you fired.
The real threat to free speech in the present day is not a "both sides" thing.
Perhaps, just maybe, if there were far fewer calls for political violence, there would be far fewer calls for controlling speech!
In light of that... "Hang Mike Pence!"... Was that a "both sides" thing?
Who will be fired, for saying something not in the party line?
Certainly NOT Dear Leader Himself, because He IS the Party Line!
The Meeting of the Right Rightist Minds will now come to Odor!
Years ago by now, Our Dear Leader announced to us, that He may commit murder in broad daylight, and we shall still support Him! So He Has Commanded, and So Must Shit be Done!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters
And now, oh ye Faithful of the Republican Church, Shit Has Become Known Unto us, that Shit is also in His Power and Privilege Ass Well, to murder the USA Constitution in broad daylight. Thus He Has Spoken, and Thus Must Shit Be Done! Thou shalt Render Unto Trump, and simply REND the USA Constitution, and wipe thine wise asses with shit! Do NOT render unto some moldering old scrap of bathroom tissue! Lest we be called fools, or worse!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
Proud Boys, STAND with TRUMP, and stand by! And if ye don’t agree 110%, then we don’t need you polluting our world, because all who disagree with us in ANY way are LEFTISTS!!!
There, I think that’s a wrap! I’ve covered shit ALL! You can take the rest of the day off now.
(You’re welcome!)
Change your moniker while forgetting about the link, Sqrlsy?
Marxists are clever, especially when they flip the roles of offender and offended. Thus we are "racists" and "fascists" when we resist their racism and fascism.
This is perhaps a specific instantiation of the general case of “SJW jujitsu”; generic case going something like this: “By getting on my case for my supposed badness, you are making me feel BAD! BAD feelings are BAD, and since YOU are CAUSING my bad feelings, YOU must be being BAD!”
Yes, “SJW jujitsu” can work for YOU, in just about every case where they get on your case!
"SJW" though exists on MANY sides! That's why they (SOME of them) say that they want us all to... "Hang Mike Pence!"
Leftists: burn down city, steal stuff, fire bomb police offices and federal court houses
Also leftists: see, Trump incited violence!
Just the facts, Ma'am!
Trump offers to pay legal bills for violent offender at Trump rally…
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
Trump’s endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect
Trump agrees with “Hang Mike Pence!”
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics/donald-trump-january-6-mike-pence-chants/index.html
Trump reacted with approval to ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters on January 6
Being hauled up to H.R. is no different than the Spanish Inquisition.
The outcome has already been decided, the ritual is the punishment. The only thing left is the burning at the stake.
...
I'm not familiar with those billboards, but how hard would it be to imagine being fired for having an affair with the boss's spouse?
The Heritage lunatics include porn/obscenity bans in Project 2025.
#ThankGawdforLarryFlynt
Yesterday you unironically asserted opening weekend box office numbers are a useful economic metric. Because when movies open huge it shows people have disposable income and therefore the economy is good.
With that in mind please tell us which movie had the biggest opening weekend ever, and who was in the White House at the time so we can credit him for that fantastic economy.
You could also look at the top 10. Half opened under Trump, the other half opened under either Obama or Biden. Does that mean that all three deserve credit for great economies?
If you point is that opening weekend box office (domestic) is not at all a reliable measure of the strength of the U.S. economy, then I'd agree.
Sandra is obviously mocking Shrike’s retarded methods of crediting and blaming presidents, but I’m sure Shrike is grateful you white knighted for him.
Leftists always show solidarity with unrepentant pedophiles.
Comrades are all about solidarity. And perversion.
I would never characterize the Catholic Church as "Leftists". Those are the most unrepentant pedophiles in history.
Funny, kids are far more likely to molested by school teachers than Catholic priests. In fact, it’s not that hard to find several articles of reported incidents just in the spring of 2024. But i realize you think the Catholic church is conservative instead of communist, so your side likes to use that a lot.
Want to try your luck?
"kids are far more likely to molested by school teachers than Catholic priests"
Absolutely, factually, and mathematically untrue. A child is much, much more likely to be molested by a priest than a teacher. While there are similar numbers of victims for each group, there are roughly 3000 priests, but over 3,000,000 teachers.
And, of course, teachers have never systematically hidden, protected, obstructed justice for, moved out of jurisdiction (including helping them escape the country to avoid prosecution), and failed to apologize for their participation in orfanized, serial child rape like the Catholic Church.
They have never apologized. They have never surrendered their records to civil authorities for prosecution of pediphile priests. They have never compensated the thousands of victims, in fact they have actively obstructed and prevented accountability of all kinds including moral, financial, judicial, or any other kind.
The Catholic Church has been nothing short of evil in terms of their pedophiles. They have failed in every way. They have betrayed their flock, and humanity as a whole. And their Protestant have been just as bad.
Your whataboutism is bullshit. Teachers have never been as bad, nor has any teacher organization actively created an international pedophile ring like the Catholic Church.
Fuck you and every other apologist with your "teachers are worse" and "it's in the past" bullshit. Those priests haven't gone to prison and they haven't been defrocked. Where do you think they are?
They're still in parishes throughout the world. And the Church not only knows who they are, they have protected their pedophile priests at the expense of everyone else.
“ And, of course, teachers have never systematically hidden, protected, obstructed justice for, moved out of jurisdiction (including helping them escape the country to avoid prosecution), and failed to apologize for their participation in orfanized, serial child rape”
That is almost definitely not true.
I wouldn't have said "never" as Nelson did, but I would say that I've never seen any systematic efforts at a high level to hide incidents of child sexual abuse by authority figures in any organization of schoolteachers like there was in the Catholic Church. Have you?
"That is almost definitely not true."
Systematically? Never. Have individuals in specific incidents covered up abuse? I assume the answer is yes.
But the Catholic Church, as a policy from the very top all the way down, used its vast wealth and power to not only hide pedophiles and prevent then from being arrested and tried, they secretly moved them (repeatedly, since pedophiles don't stop abusing) to parish after parish.
Those are two very, very, very different things.
Here's the thing, percentage-wise the Catholic church's pedophile figures don't even come within a light year of schoolteachers and sports coaches, and aren't even in the same galaxy as LGBTIQQ activists.
But you don't actually give a shit because you don't actually care about kids being raped and just want to rail about x-tians.
Fucking joke.
Here’s the thing, percentage-wise the Catholic church’s pedophile figures don’t even come within a light year of schoolteachers and sports coaches, and aren’t even in the same galaxy as LGBTIQQ activists.
If you're going to talk about percentages, then I think that citing actual data would be appropriate to support your claim.
But you don’t actually give a shit because you don’t actually care about kids being raped and just want to rail about x-tians.
And it looks like you just wanted to rail about "LGBTIQQ [sic] activists", so maybe finding a reason to point a finger at a group you dislike isn't going to be productive, don't you think?
"But you don’t actually give a shit because you don’t actually care about kids being raped and just want to rail about x-tians."
My father was the fourth victim of a pedophile priest that was moved 8 times, was confirmed to have raped 12 boys, and never stood trial because the Church kept moving him. The Church knew about all of them, plus additional cases that were never corroborated. The Church prevented him from ever being arrested or tried by moving him across state line, eventually bringing him to the Vatican in his early 50s for "retirement" when his pedophilia was publicly disclosed.
So go fuck yourself. I know exactly what I'm talking about and I care a great deal more than a whiny, morally bankrupt, paleoconservative jackass like you.
My father, who was raped at 9, died 7 years ago at 82. Even if you assume that his rapist was the first pedophole priest ever, that's 80 years that the Catholic Church has been funding and facilitating an international pedophile ring.
And if you think they've stopped, you are a fool or an apologist. Or both.
You don't actually give a shit about pedophilia, since you're comfortable ignoring actual pedophiles as long as you can falsely accuse entire innocent populations of rampant pedophilia.
I don't hate Christians because I have known way too many good and decent people whose decency is directly informed by their faith. Hell, soldiermedic posted one of the most moving and eloquent posts about what his faith means to him that I've ever read.
Calling out the morally bankrupt Catholic Church on their evil and pointing out the hypocrisy and duplicity of those who wish to ignore rampant, protected pedophilia in conservative organizations like the Boy Scouts, Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc. while falsely accusing gay people is just being honest.
You should try it some time.
“Here’s the thing, percentage-wise the Catholic church’s pedophile figures don’t even come within a light year of schoolteachers and sports coaches”
Percentage-wise you are absolitely wrong. The totals are higher.
You mean the 30000 priests in America haven’t raped as many kids as the 3 to 4 million teachers?
There’s a thing called math that easily explains why. You should learn about it.
You claim there are only 3000 priests? That number is way off.
Sorry, I missed a zero. 30000 priests.
Absolutely, factually, and mathematically untrue.
Absolutel, factually, and mathematically true. Which is why you're trying to per capita argument.
The rest of your post is rhetoical handwaving that doesn't have anything to do with teachers molesting kids.
Let's start with just a few recent articles:
MONROE, Wash. — A 53-year-old Monroe High School teacher is being held in Snohomish County Jail on $250,000 bail after being arrested for allegedly having an inappropriate relationship with at least one student.
The man, who has not been formally charged, faces two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor. He was placed on administrative leave in February.
DENVER (KDVR) — A Fort Collins middle school teacher was arrested on multiple charges of sexual assault against a child, and police are asking additional victims to come forward.
According to Fort Collins Police Services, in April 2024, staff at the Poudre School District told police that there were accusations that one of their teachers inappropriately touched students. The teacher was identified as 52-year-old Evan King.
WALL TOWNSHIP — A Wall High School teacher is in the Monmouth County Jail, charged with sexual assault and other offenses stemming from a relationship with a student that began earlier this year, authorities said.
Julie Rizzitello, 36, of Brick, who resigned from her teaching position earlier this week, was arrested Wednesday and charged with two counts of sexual assault and three counts of criminal sexual contact, Monmouth County Prosecutor Raymond S. Santiago and Wall Police Chief Sean O'Halloran said in a joint news release.
FREEHOLD – A teacher at Freehold Intermediate School has been arrested and criminally charged for having a sexual relationship with a student, Monmouth County Prosecutor Raymond S. Santiago announced Saturday.
Allison Havemann-Niedrach, 43, of Jackson (Ocean County) is charged with one count of first-degree Aggravated Sexual Assault and one count of second-degree Endangering the Welfare of a Child.
"Which is why you’re trying to per capita argument."
Oh, so the fact that there are 100 times as many teachers as priests (and 300 or 400 times more than that if you include all school employees like coaches) is irrelevant? Math is a thing. You should learn about it.
When you need to use anecdotes as evidence, it just shows you are wrong. Would you like me to start spamming links about the pedophile priests that the Church failed to hide? There are a shitload.
The vast majority of teachers who discover a coworker abusing children turn them in. The Catholic Church had an active policy, coming from the very top of their hierarchy and actively funded by them, of protecting and hiding pedophile priests. The intentionally and actively aided them avoiding arrest and prosecution. That is an irrefutable fact.
If you are incapable of discerning a difference between the two, it's because you don't want to.
You only notice pedophilia when you don't support the group they belong to. You are a terrible, morally empty person.
It's always good to see Disney movies tank right out of the gate.
Do you mean Inside Out 2? I heard that was a complete ... oh, wait.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Cite?
IOW many Americans support the authoritarian agenda of Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky as outlined in his essay Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America
I suggest we reframe these sorts of polls, like this:
I don't want to live in a country where people can say things that make others sad. (Agree/Disagree)
I don't want to live in a country where people are allowed to make, trade, buy, and sell whatever they want. (Agree/Disagree)
I don't want to live in a country where people are responsible for their own material and emotional well-being. (Agree/Disagree)
Then we can encourage the people who don't want to live here to find another home.
I suggest we reframe these sorts of polls, like this:
Nah. I’d suggest reframing them this way instead:
“I don’t want to be able to say things that make others offended.” (Agree/Disagree)
“I don’t want to be allowed to make, trade, buy, and sell whatever I want.” (Agree/Disagree)
“I don’t want to be responsible for my own material and emotional well-being.” (Agree/Disagree)
Or, we could even reframe them again and make the questions about personal behavior rather than anything to do with government:
“I don’t want others to say bigoted things towards me, so I will work to avoid saying bigoted things towards them.” (Agree/Disagree)
“I wouldn’t want a product that was defective, caused pollution, exploited poor workers, etc., and caused harm to me or my children, so I won’t be part of making, selling, or buying such products.” (Agree/Disagree)
“I wouldn’t want to be left with no way to pay for my own health care if I got too sick to work or my children’s health care if I couldn’t get insurance, so I will help others that are in that situation.” (Agree/Disagree)
Frankly, this illustrates a problem that I find in libertarian advocacy. They may have valid points about what government should or shouldn’t be doing to force people to act more ethically or morally, but they also do little or nothing to encourage people to act more ethically or morally without government coercion. Putting a cynical take on it, this makes me wonder if they are truly that concerned about being forced by government not to act like selfish jerks. Instead, maybe they just want to act like selfish jerks without anyone calling them out when they do.
What’s wrong with being a selfish jerk if you don’t harm others?
Uh, I think what is "wrong" with it is inherent in the definitions of both of those words. They are subjective judgements about a person, but their meaning is clearly negative to anyone that would use them.
Also, people generally make that kind of judgement about someone after they have acted in a way towards other people that is at least considered as lacking compassion, empathy, and kindness, even if not harmful. I have only suggested that such people may work to avoid being criticized for acting that way, not they are deserving of some kind of punishment, at least not from a government authority. People are always free to choose not to associate with someone that they think is a selfish jerk, of course.
As a leftist, you don’t want to pull too hard in that thread. As your kind have no morality. Given your blatant bigotry, and downright evil behavior (child grooming, infanticide, violent xenophobic behavior, theft, vandalism, etc.).
Morality is anathema to democrats.
Nope. I did no include the word "government". But I did focus on if people find free behavior by others to be unacceptable. And my point is if you hate the way things are done here, then get your ass on a plane.
And my point is if you hate the way things are done here, then get your ass on a plane.
You say that as if the people that decided “the way things are done here” cannot be questioned or challenged about those decisions. You also say that as if the only option for people that disagree with the consensus at a particular time is to leave, rather than to continue to speak their own minds about what they want to see change and to work to persuade others to join them.
That’s the paradoxical thing about freedom. It even includes the freedom to believe that there shouldn’t be so much freedom and to have the freedom to say that out loud without being punished for it.
They don’t have any right to actually restrict anyone else’s freedom, but they can say whatever the fuck they want about how things “should be” and still get to live in a free country, if it is actually a free country.
Some of those poll answers sound mutually contradictory. I have to wonder how well constructed the poll questions were.
Perfectly constructed. They got the desired results, right?
For FIRE? I'm not sure. On the one hand, yes they do a lot of fundraising on the need to protect free speech. But on the other hand, they're going to undercut their own mission if they give the impression that the fight is already lost.
I don't find this result the least bit surprising. When it comes to politics, it is though many people believe the opposite of the Golden Rule: Do unto others before they do unto you.
How much better would our political discourse and elections be if people thought about these questions?
How would you want others to treat your right to speak your mind if your opinion was opposed by a large majority of those other people?
How would you want others to evaluate the facts you present as part of your arguments?
What election security procedures would you want in place if your voting preferences were shared by less than 50% of other voters?
What voting rights protections would you want in place if your voting preferences were shared by less than 50% of other voters?
How would you want legislative districts to be drawn if your voting preferences were shared by less than 50% of other voters?
How would you want voters that prefer candidates you oppose to judge the ethics their preferred candidates and the ethics of your preferred candidates?
The answers to those questions are supposed to be a guide for how we should behave towards other people regardless of what we think they "deserve", not how angry we should get when we don't get what we think is right.
Democrats certainly do t believe in freedom of speech.
But they do believe in the freedom of the official party narrative, including the freedom to censor any opposition or dissent.
Bullshit. Another "poll" manipulated to meet the narrative.
Gee, it's almost as if Team Red and Team Blue are two sides of the same authoritarian coin...
Team Blue: "Hate speech and political donations shouldn't count as 'free speech' and should be banned!"
Team Red: "Burning flags and Pride parades shouldn't count as 'free speech' and should be banned!"
So true. The difference isn’t principle. It’s who and what and where. It’s not one side supports censorship and the other opposes it. The argument is over who and what to censor. It’s not one side supports freedom of assembly and the other doesn’t. It’s who gets to assemble and where. It’s not tolerance or intolerance. It’s what is tolerated and who decides.
Nobody likes libertarians because they judge based on principles, not principals.
So you two chucklefucks read the survey and noted that ‘boaf sides’ were pro-censorship?
Amazing!
I must have missed it though. You want to point out where they broke down the respondents political affiliations?
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/national-speech-index-july-2024
"Team Red: “Burning flags and Pride parades shouldn’t count as ‘free speech’ and should be banned!”
Also, who here said this, Lying Jeffy? Nobody here has ever argued the first, and the second it's always your pedo pals being sexually explicit in front of children and the unwilling that is the actual issue, and you know that.
It said over 50% of each side thinks the 1A goes too far. That is both sides.
And in case you forgot, the leader of your church wants to jail flag burners.
As far as that last part goes, I’ve stayed out of that argument.
And for the millionth time I’m not on a side, jackass.
Haha, good one.
keep telling yourself that, i think the many people here you are rebuking think that your revealed preferences say otherwise
Pedo Jeffy and his Boaf Sidez’ bullshit. When he 100% supports only one side.
I wouldn’t classify Pride parades (really any parades) as “speech” per se, but they’re still covered under the 1st by “peaceable assembly”.
I would daresay those who oppose the First Amendment have been through the indoctrination/brainwashing in America's Universities by neo-Marxist(communist) professors. The results from which we are now witnessing.
The First Amendment states free speech will be protected. If you don't like it move to China or Britain or Germany.( They have no freedom of speech in neither of those places.)
"If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington.
Problem with this is the modern "speech" includes blocking traffic and destroying the property of others, or are you cool with that? To make that worse there is an deliberate unequal application of the law and that definition, cool with that as well? So you can believe in free speech and vehemently disagree with how that is applied in practice.
Those should both be self evidently not speech.
At least the civil rights protesters in the 60’s understood that blocking bridges and shit was going to get them arrested (at best), fire hosed, or the hounds being released.
Impeding my right to travel is an act of force, deserving of a forcible response. Destroying my property is a theft of the value of that property, also deserving of a forcible response. Neither of these actions are excused by pretending that they are speech.
-jcr
1000 people out of 342 million...... Am I to take this poll as seriously as a Family Feud category?
Another reason why an "Article 5" constitutional convention should be avoided at all costs. Americans are much less libertarian now than they were in 1787.
If the Bill of Rights were put on the ballot for a straight up-or-down vote today, it would be voted down.
Wasn't there a survey, many years ago, that asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence - but identified it as a Soviet document - and some high proportion of respondents disagreed?
Not surprised. The Declaration is an explicitly insurrectionist document.
The headline of the article is wrong, too.
The Constitution doesn't "provide" rights, it mandates that Congress (and, by extension of the 14th Amendment, the states) respect the natural/God-given rights of the populace.
Over 60 percent of Democrats thought the First Amendment could go too far, compared to 52 percent of Republicans.
90% is over 60%.
https://youtu.be/pjvQFtlNQ-M?si=bpQyjFOqKt2ove-g
60% of the time, it works every time.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; and that's more than enough to stay in power.
I had to log in for the blissful relief of gray boxes.
Re: The Article,
I thought that people stopped paying attention to pollsters and PROGnosticators after 2016.
Libertarian podcast: How Universities fell to censorship.
Trigger warning, not a lot of bowf-sidzing here.
And…………………………………….
Be it no surprise those exact same P.O.S. think socialism is good for the USA.
They think gangland [WE] gangs of identity should have complete power of the monopoly of Gov-Guns.
That is why they identify as democrats instead of *Constitutional* Republicans.
Why didn't you identify them with any specificity, Emma?
Sure, the FIRE folks didn't do your thinking for you - but you can do 2+2, right?
You know who hates free speech?
Neo-nazis. The ones currently rooting for Hamas over Israel.
LGBT pedos. The ones claiming that misgendering and deadnaming is literal violence, while persisting in a delusional state.
Open borders. The ones who can't even bring themselves to say "illegal alien," reaching for any other euphemism instead.
Pro-abortion. Man, do THEY hate reality.
Marxists. Anything approved, recited in tandem; unapproved down the memory hole.
The Mainstream Media (including Social Media). See above. All of it.
The Democrat Party. See above. All of it. With influence.
but you can do 2+2, right?
Can you? Can you really?
Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
Let the poor souls who experience too much freedom from the federal government propose an amendment to change the First and get it adopted, then.
They'll just modify and threaten to stuff SCOTUS with ignoramuses who ignore the Constitution like they've been doing for the last 100+ years.
Although opinion polls are mostly worthless, it highlights the whole purpose of the Framers and the point of having a difficult-to-amend Constitution in the first place. The Constitutional guarantee of free speech is not meant to be subject to the whims of the moment and should not depend on the popularity of the content of the speech or writings. Of course powerful officials and powerful minorities have always felt comfortable violating the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree and the Supreme Court has not always been steadfast in protecting those rights, or the original intent of the Constitution in general for that matter. Ultimately the only thing that can maintain those rights against encroachment is an armed citizenry that INSISTS on keeping them, coupled with enlightened self-interest - the realization that failing to protect the free speech rights of those with whom you disagree today might come back to bite you when they gain temporary power later and deny you YOUR free speech rights in turn.
True; it seems we are at a time where the perceived expediency of one group prevailing and shutting down any opposition is blind to this inevitability.
Or the success of one group at imposing their own views on the entire nation has reached a point where the other side no longer has anything to lose.
If 70% of college students believe words are violence, they should experience the violence when they attempt to silence one of us. They don't know what real unadulterated violence is . The type of violence a man who knows his life has been permanently changed and will never be the same again when he is forced to take up arms and deal almighty retribution on those who would dare take away his life his family and his freedom.
If 70% of college students believe words are violence,
When I heard that, my immediate reaction was that it's the kind of belief one would expect from kids who grew up bubble-wrapped by helicopter parents, shielded from all consequences of snotty behavior.
-jcr
Narcissists, every one of them. Indeed...helicopter parents, liberal suburbanites.
Camp's article on the survey seems to treat the survey results as chiefly indicative of Americans' attitudes toward freedom of speech. Yet that particular right doesn't seem to be singled out in the First Amendment question whose results she presents.
I suspect that at least for respondents who're Democrats, no small part of the belief that the 1A goes too far is due to the freedom-of-religion aspect, and its use in attempts to escape anti-discrimination law. Since such laws tend to be strongly favored by progressives, and opposed or much less strongly supported by conservatives, this could account for much of the difference between members of the two parties.
The ONLY thing all rational people share in peace is truth, reality, demonstrated by correctly applied logic and science.
Neither obsolete political party has TRUTH as a plank in their platform because they only exist, are only relevant, in conflict.
Opponents to free speech may or may not even recognize that they are perpetuating conflict.
Choose! The red pill or the blue pill.
All those who believe the First Amendment goes too far or should be curtailed should all pack their bags and move to China or North Korea. How about Britain, where there is no freedom of speech, just ask Tommy Robinson. I almost forgot, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
So just pack your bags and GTFO of America. You should be very comfortable living in a dictatorship like Britain.
People don't want fewer rights, they want the rights of others balanced so they don't infringe on their own. Rights are close to a zero sum game and most, but not all, are willing to reach reasonable compromise.
Somehow, discussion on the First Amendment always seems to home in on the right of free speech, even though it is only one of the rights guaranteed in that Amendment. It just happens to be the most respectable, so the easiest straw man to erect. it's only speech, so even if it offends, it can't harm anyone, so why not?
The right of loony leftists to peacably assemble on busy and restricted access roads to petition the government? The right of rabid mohamedans to offer virgins in return for the death of infidels? The right of MSNBC to hide and alter truths to influence elections? Who doesn't think the First Amendment goes too far?