Quote:A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to "reflect the cultural norms of today." The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results "indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed."
"The findings are frankly extraordinary," executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. "Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them."
Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in "hate speech." Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.
American hostility to the First Amendment did not stop at speech. Many would also like to see a crackdown on the free press. Nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that the "government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false." Of those respondents, 46 percent supported possible jail time.
The poll was released just two days after two University of Connecticut students were arrested for allegedly saying racial slurs in a viral video. The 21-year-old suspects were allegedly playing "a game in which they yelled vulgar words," according to the police report. Lystad said such incidents and the rise of social media may be behind the increased willingness of Americans to curb speech rights.
"I think [our findings] are fueled in large part because of a rise of hate speech, but traditionally, hate speech is protected in the First Amendment," Lystad said. "The Supreme Court has upheld that principle time and time again."
Lystad launched the Campaign for Free Speech to advocate for preserving free and open dialogue in America. The group emphasizes that hate speech should be denounced, but does not think censorship is the answer. The group plans to push back against efforts to restrict speech at the local, state, and federal levels.
"Hate speech should be condemned, but legally, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech, not censorship," he said. "Our primary focus is education, and to help people better understand the First Amendment, free speech, free press, and why it's so vital to our democracy."
Link
Dear anti-First Amendment People,
Go **** yourselves.
Hate speech laws (just like gun confiscation) are coming. I believe it was Pew Research that did a study on this and broke it down by demographics in order to give a hint at what the US may look like in the not too distant future.
That's why you shouldn't buy the "muh constitution" argument from the ben shapiro/mitt romney/"principled conservative"/controlled opposition crowd. Their precious constitution is about to be voted out of existence.
(10-24-2019 02:49 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Hate speech laws (just like gun confiscation) are coming. I believe it was Pew Research that did a study on this and broke it down by demographics in order to give a hint at what the US may look like in the not too distant future.
That's why you shouldn't buy the "muh constitution" argument from the ben shapiro/mitt romney/"principled conservative"/controlled opposition crowd. Their precious constitution is about to be voted out of existence.
There are a lot of Constitutional gurus on this forum. I am not one of them. Please don't take my comments taken as anything other than a sincere question ....
Are there governing principles for when and how a Constitutional right can be limited? These rights plainly are not absolute. If they were, we would not have laws prohibiting the general sale of fully automatic weapons.
Yet we do. So where is the line drawn? Is it dependent on the particular right in question?
Given my druthers, I'd happily limit the right to vote to only citizens who are not on the public dole. Prisoners, welfare recipients and wards of the state would not be entitled to vote in any of our national elections. I suspect someone here will tell me that this is an unconstitutional restriction. But why? What makes the right to vote sacrosanct for all (juveniles and convicted felons excepted)?
To stay on topic for this particular thread, what makes the right to free expression sacrosanct? I'm not for shutting down political speech, but there is plenty of sadistic filth in the public conversation that I would have no problem seeing regulated.
(10-24-2019 03:25 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019 02:49 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Hate speech laws (just like gun confiscation) are coming. I believe it was Pew Research that did a study on this and broke it down by demographics in order to give a hint at what the US may look like in the not too distant future.
That's why you shouldn't buy the "muh constitution" argument from the ben shapiro/mitt romney/"principled conservative"/controlled opposition crowd. Their precious constitution is about to be voted out of existence.
There are a lot of Constitutional gurus on this forum. I am not one of them. Please don't take my comments taken as anything other than a sincere question ....
Are there governing principles for when and how a Constitutional right can be limited? These rights plainly are not absolute. If they were, we would not have laws prohibiting the general sale of fully automatic weapons.
Yet we do. So where is the line drawn? Is it dependent on the particular right in question?
Given my druthers, I'd happily limit the right to vote to only citizens who are not on the public dole. Prisoners, welfare recipients and wards of the state would not be entitled to vote in any of our national elections. I suspect someone here will tell me that this is an unconstitutional restriction. But why? What makes the right to vote sacrosanct for all (juveniles and convicted felons excepted)?
To stay on topic for this particular thread, what makes the right to free expression sacrosanct? I'm not for shutting down political speech, but there is plenty of sadistic filth in the public conversation that I would have no problem seeing regulated.
This is a brief summary of the standard to infringe a fundamental constitutional right
Wikipedia link to Strict Scrutiny
So basically we want Soviet Union style speech police that jail you if the gubment determines you've used a prohibited rule. WHAT A COUNTRY.
I call fabric on this. I highly question the metrics involved in this survey.
(10-24-2019 03:25 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019 02:49 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Hate speech laws (just like gun confiscation) are coming. I believe it was Pew Research that did a study on this and broke it down by demographics in order to give a hint at what the US may look like in the not too distant future.
That's why you shouldn't buy the "muh constitution" argument from the ben shapiro/mitt romney/"principled conservative"/controlled opposition crowd. Their precious constitution is about to be voted out of existence.
There are a lot of Constitutional gurus on this forum. I am not one of them. Please don't take my comments taken as anything other than a sincere question ....
Are there governing principles for when and how a Constitutional right can be limited? These rights plainly are not absolute. If they were, we would not have laws prohibiting the general sale of fully automatic weapons.
Yet we do. So where is the line drawn? Is it dependent on the particular right in question?
Given my druthers, I'd happily limit the right to vote to only citizens who are not on the public dole. Prisoners, welfare recipients and wards of the state would not be entitled to vote in any of our national elections. I suspect someone here will tell me that this is an unconstitutional restriction. But why? What makes the right to vote sacrosanct for all (juveniles and convicted felons excepted)?
To stay on topic for this particular thread, what makes the right to free expression sacrosanct? I'm not for shutting down political speech, but there is plenty of sadistic filth in the public conversation that I would have no problem seeing regulated.
I agree with this 100%.
(10-24-2019 06:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I call fabric on this. I highly question the metrics involved in this survey.
Which part? I doubt seriously they polled anyone over 40 so I doubt the thread title is accurate. I do not doubt for one one minute though that the majority of those polled wish to see the constitution left intact as it now exists. They simply do not have the accumulated life experiences required to view this issue objectively and based their answers on muh feelz.
I just wish we would hurry up and get the divorce over with.
(10-24-2019 02:08 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:A majority of Americans believe the First Amendment should be rewritten and are willing to crack down on free speech, as well as the press, according to a new poll.
More than 60 percent of Americans agree on restricting speech in some way, while a slim majority, 51 percent, want to see the First Amendment rewritten to "reflect the cultural norms of today." The Campaign for Free Speech, which conducted the survey, said the results "indicate free speech is under more threat than previously believed."
"The findings are frankly extraordinary," executive director Bob Lystad told the Washington Free Beacon. "Our free speech rights and our free press rights have evolved well over 200 years, and people now seem to be rethinking them."
Of the 1,004 respondents, young people were the most likely to support curbing free expression and punishing those who engage in "hate speech." Nearly 60 percent of Millennials—respondents between the ages of 21 and 38—agreed that the Constitution "goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America" and should be rewritten, compared to 48 percent of Gen Xers and 47 percent of Baby Boomers. A majority of Millennials also supported laws that would make "hate speech" a crime—of those supporters, 54 percent said violators should face jail time.
American hostility to the First Amendment did not stop at speech. Many would also like to see a crackdown on the free press. Nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that the "government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false." Of those respondents, 46 percent supported possible jail time.
The poll was released just two days after two University of Connecticut students were arrested for allegedly saying racial slurs in a viral video. The 21-year-old suspects were allegedly playing "a game in which they yelled vulgar words," according to the police report. Lystad said such incidents and the rise of social media may be behind the increased willingness of Americans to curb speech rights.
"I think [our findings] are fueled in large part because of a rise of hate speech, but traditionally, hate speech is protected in the First Amendment," Lystad said. "The Supreme Court has upheld that principle time and time again."
Lystad launched the Campaign for Free Speech to advocate for preserving free and open dialogue in America. The group emphasizes that hate speech should be denounced, but does not think censorship is the answer. The group plans to push back against efforts to restrict speech at the local, state, and federal levels.
"Hate speech should be condemned, but legally, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech, not censorship," he said. "Our primary focus is education, and to help people better understand the First Amendment, free speech, free press, and why it's so vital to our democracy."
Link
Dear anti-First Amendment People,
Go **** yourselves.
I would bet the vast majority of those 60% wanting to censor media think ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN always tell the truth and never do anything inflammatory.
Which makes this viewpoint even scarier.
(10-24-2019 06:52 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019 06:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I call fabric on this. I highly question the metrics involved in this survey.
Which part? I doubt seriously they polled anyone over 40 so I doubt the thread title is accurate. I do not doubt for one one minute though that the majority of those polled wish to see the constitution left intact as it now exists. They simply do not have the accumulated life experiences required to view this issue objectively and based their answers on muh feelz.
You expounded my thoughts on this pretty well.
(10-24-2019 05:23 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote: [ -> ]So basically we want Soviet Union style speech police that jail you if the gubment determines you've used a prohibited rule. WHAT A COUNTRY.
the msm does.....WE DO NOT!
#crazyTimes
I can think of some things Id like to see changed Constitutionally like the end of birth right citizenship...term limits and repeal of the 16th amendment replaced by a consumption tax paradigm..but.. the 1st amendment would be last on my list of things to change.
That next one down on the amendment list will help protect the 1st.
(10-25-2019 07:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I can think of some things Id like to see changed Constitutionally like the end of birth right citizenship...term limits and repeal of the 16th amendment replaced by a consumption tax paradigm..but.. the 1st amendment would be last on my list of things to change.
Same here, except the 2nd is tied with the 1st, because the 2nd makes all the others possible.
Second Amendment as well.
(10-24-2019 06:16 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I call fabric on this. I highly question the metrics involved in this survey.
I’m with you. I call BS! The communist are like rain on your roof. They are searching every day for a small leak they can exploit.
(10-25-2019 07:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019 07:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I can think of some things Id like to see changed Constitutionally like the end of birth right citizenship...term limits and repeal of the 16th amendment replaced by a consumption tax paradigm..but.. the 1st amendment would be last on my list of things to change.
Same here, except the 2nd is tied with the 1st, because the 2nd makes all the others possible.
The first 10 Amendments should be unamendable.
Good thing is it takes a lot more than a majority of people to get an amendment through.
(10-25-2019 08:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019 07:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019 07:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]I can think of some things Id like to see changed Constitutionally like the end of birth right citizenship...term limits and repeal of the 16th amendment replaced by a consumption tax paradigm..but.. the 1st amendment would be last on my list of things to change.
Same here, except the 2nd is tied with the 1st, because the 2nd makes all the others possible.
The first 10 Amendments should be unamendable.
Good thing is it takes a lot more than a majority of people to get an amendment through.
it still amazes me how well the founders thought it through....
Don't have to change any of them when a single judge can whittle here and there. That's the real problem, not the danger of enough people to call a convention.