Revision of 1st amendment

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by JimP

Bubblehead and SouthernDZ - we should get together at the Pearl or somewhere for coffee/slugfest. The three of us could occupy the River-walk by force.

I'm working at Fort Sam; live up in StoneOak.

Sounds like fun, however I'm way up north in DFW area.

[SouthernDZ]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

Sounds like fun, however I'm way up north in DFW area.

Let me know. I'm laying low in Schertz.

[MR2]

I've long advocated that the specific portion of The First that gives special protections to the press, be, temporally suspended (on national security grounds).

This action would put the press on the same footing as the rest of the population regarding libel, slander, and confidential sources.

After several thousand lawsuits, the so-called "press" would start reporting news as news and opinions as commentary with clearly defined barriers between them.

[Old Dog New Trick]

*Journalism* (or public protest with a bullhorn or other sound amplifier) should require an individual permit or license issued by the state and the state should have clearly defined rules and sub laws to the US and State Constitutions on where one can openly open their mouth or where opening ones’ mouth is closely controlled for content and truthful standards.

At least then the federal government can come in and post signs that say this is “Speech Free Zone” (a place where absolutely no hateful, hurtful, discriminative, or political speech is allowed.) (Pretty much everywhere but especially within 500’ of school campuses/universities, government buildings, airports, train stations and movie theaters to name a few.)

Anyone found to be speaking without a license is subject to fines, imprisonment or both and be subject to civil and criminal penalties for libel or hurt feelings.

No “Soapbox” for you! Anyone profiting from speaking (TV personality) have additional requirements and restrictions on free speech to be 100% truthful at all times.

Speaking is not an unrestricted free right, certain etiquette and ethical standards must be maintained and enforced for the protection of all citizens. (To protect the children.)

Anyone opening ones’ mouth or discharging hateful rhetoric, inciting riot, or general discourse is guilty of verbal assault. If any injuries result from or to anyone in the vicinity of can/will raise the level of assault to felony assault and battery and all participants are guilty of the crime even if only one person conducted it.

(Note: Unlawful and unregistered immigrants have no reasonable expectation to speak freely or publicly without repercussions to include immediate arrest from local, state and federal authorities and be subject to deportation.)

Note: These permits/licenses are subject to fees as little as $50 and up to $500 and must be renewed per state law every two to five years. Also you will be subject to providing fingerprints and voice analysis recordings at the time of application and fees of $20 to $100 will be collected at this time even if the permit/license is denied.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Note: These permits/licenses are subject to fees as little as $50 and up to $500 and must be renewed per state law every two to five years. Also you will be subject to providing fingerprints and voice analysis recordings at the time of application and fees of $20 to $100 will be collected at this time even if the permit/license is denied.

Separate one-time $200 fee, per item, for ownership of the bullhorn. Must notify .gov when taking it out of state for "protest". Ownership + batteries, even when not installed together, constitutes violation based on "constructive intent."

Surely, this would close the audio-visual equipment convention loophole. If we save even 1 set of ears...

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Separate one-time $200 fee, per item, for ownership of the bullhorn. Must notify .gov when taking it out of state for "protest". Ownership + batteries, even when not installed together, constitutes violation based on "constructive intent."

Surely, this would close the audio-visual equipment convention loophole. If we save even 1 set of ears...

Chuckle

[RCummings]

So these antifa or, you name the group, get so obnoxious that the government doesn't have to do anything. We get rid of the 1st amendment ourselves...these protestors are simply serving that purpose.

Let them talk, scream, or throw tantrums who cares? Don't like being around them, then don't be there. Protestors who break the zillion laws we have can be charged.

Ultimately whose advantage is it if the 1st Amendment goes away? Isn't that what we're talking about? Or do we want to pick who can speak?

We are all seeing and have seen the results of entities deciding for us and others what can and cannot be said.

Respectfully,

Bob

[Old Dog New Trick]

I think it comes down to the old phrase - “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” (or “Your rights end where mine begin”)

No one should have to feel threatened, intimidated or leave a public space because of Antifa, BLM, or some other SJW hate group that thinks it’s okay to get in your face and disrupt what you have every right to enjoy doing without them.

It’s called disturbing the peace, invasion of privacy, assault through verbal or physical (battery) intimidation. The fact that the police are ordered to stand down by SJW city council members and mayors can only lead to what’s inevitable - violence!

So many laws are being broken by these protesters on a daily basis that none of them respect the laws that are protecting them. The pendulum is swinging back from the far left, where it stops will determine what is acceptable in the future or our system is simply broken and needs a solid review and reboot.

[doctom54]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

... where it stops will determine what is acceptable in the future or our system is simply broken and needs a solid review and reboot.

I think it is broke and the present government just slowed the descent to the cliff.

Which is not bad. It gives thinking people time to prepare.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

*Journalism* (or public protest with a bullhorn or other sound amplifier) should require an individual permit or license issued by the state and the state should have clearly defined rules and sub laws to the US and State Constitutions on where one can openly open their mouth or where opening ones’ mouth is closely controlled for content and truthful standards.

At least then the federal government can come in and post signs that say this is “Speech Free Zone” (a place where absolutely no hateful, hurtful, discriminative, or political speech is allowed.) (Pretty much everywhere but especially within 500’ of school campuses/universities, government buildings, airports, train stations and movie theaters to name a few.)

Anyone found to be speaking without a license is subject to fines, imprisonment or both and be subject to civil and criminal penalties for libel or hurt feelings.

No “Soapbox” for you! Anyone profiting from speaking (TV personality) have additional requirements and restrictions on free speech to be 100% truthful at all times.

Speaking is not an unrestricted free right, certain etiquette and ethical standards must be maintained and enforced for the protection of all citizens. (To protect the children.)

Anyone opening ones’ mouth or discharging hateful rhetoric, inciting riot, or general discourse is guilty of verbal assault. If any injuries result from or to anyone in the vicinity of can/will raise the level of assault to felony assault and battery and all participants are guilty of the crime even if only one person conducted it.

(Note: Unlawful and unregistered immigrants have no reasonable expectation to speak freely or publicly without repercussions to include immediate arrest from local, state and federal authorities and be subject to deportation.)

Note: These permits/licenses are subject to fees as little as $50 and up to $500 and must be renewed per state law every two to five years. Also you will be subject to providing fingerprints and voice analysis recordings at the time of application and fees of $20 to $100 will be collected at this time even if the permit/license is denied.

Allow business to post "free speech not allowed" signs so licensed free speech people are not authorized to enter the business and harass the customers.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by RCummings

So these antifa or, you name the group, get so obnoxious that the government doesn't have to do anything. We get rid of the 1st amendment ourselves...these protestors are simply serving that purpose.

Let them talk, scream, or throw tantrums who cares? Don't like being around them, then don't be there. Protestors who break the zillion laws we have can be charged.

Ultimately whose advantage is it if the 1st Amendment goes away? Isn't that what we're talking about? Or do we want to pick who can speak?

We are all seeing and have seen the results of entities deciding for us and others what can and cannot be said.

Respectfully,

Bob

I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating restrictions on the 1st Amendment. However there are Democrats in Washington doing so.

As far as the loud, rude protestors go...perhaps they need to be caught alone and have an ass whipping applied. (I'm not advocating anyone do that)

[Old Dog New Trick]

‘If’ the “pen is mightier than the sword.” Then a few facts have to be realized.

The founding fathers are believed to have rearranged the order of the first 10 (first two) amendments. Moving freedom of speech, religion and a free press ahead of what was originally the 1st Amendment “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, for the protection of a free state.” Why they switched them I can’t recall, but probably for the same reasons below.

In the history of American war, individual freedom (right to self protection) and the enforcement of law the gun has never started a war, discharged itself in defense or created legal precedent by itself. Words, be they failed diplomacy of government, words of warning issued before an action, or commands of law enforcement to change an inevitable course of action - all before a trigger is pulled, have not changed much in 200+ years.

Words (the pen: spoken or written) have in nearly all justifiable cases precipitated the use and necessity of the 2nd Amendment or the gun. Maybe that is the reason the founding fathers switched them because a gun doesn’t think, it doesn’t act, it doesn’t feel or fear or experience emotion. Humans do that and words do have meaning and consequences.

So why is it that the government (of the people) have written so many laws and established so many draconian rules to control an inanimate piece of metal when in fact what should be further controlled is someone’s mouth?

Not much has changed regarding the 1st and almost no one has every been arrested for “yelling fire in a crowded theater” let alone inciting violence/riot. The movie/gaming industry have mandatory ratings to protect children from foul language, violence and sexual themes but it’s okay for movie stars to stand on a public stage with a microphone and spew vulgar words and parade about in a rubber vagina while inciting others to burn, destroy and vandalize property and that’s OK?

Something is terribly wrong with our country and it won’t take new laws to correct; there are already the laws necessary in the books to change our direction; they just have to be enforced. Can start with Maxine, Ashley, Cher and others. The right to protest and seek redress of grievance is protected. The act of blocking traffic, breaking windows and burning your city to the ground is not; inciting others to do that is a crime.

Start enforcing the law and nip this in the bud. Everything currently wrong with our nation is because of language that is not protected by the constitution. Free speech has limitations and real consequences exist for not being better controlled by the adults in the room.

[PSM]

Revision of 1st amendment

I'd be willing to play their game by seeking to require background checks on so-called journalists. Let's threaten them with a little tit-for-tat and see what song they begin singing.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by bblhead672

I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating restrictions on the 1st Amendment. However there are Democrats in Washington doing so.

As far as the loud, rude protestors go...perhaps they need to be caught alone and have an ass whipping applied. (I'm not advocating anyone do that)

Not restrictions but a revision that defines when peaceful is no longer just peaceful but inciteful, intimidation, verbal assault, threatening and challenging to a fight and when do us citizens reserve the right to feel harassed and threatened enough to take action....when they block streets and movement they interfere with others rights.....when they scream at someone walking by the protest out of necessity who begins to feel bullied and threatened trying to navigate.... When does the public name calling and accusations become assault.....what if the victim lacks the verbal skills to fight back and resorts to violence in response to the threats???? There is a limit to patience and bullying the answer to a wimp screaming is a physical response that answers the ole letting your mouth write checks your body can't cash.......saying what you want being harmless is untrue or it wouldn't be said to me the honesty of beating the piss out of a mouthy punk protected by invisible words called a right is dishonest and is an abuse of the intent....the irony is the anarchy these idiots portray is exactly what would be their doom if this country fell into anarchy....in nature if an animal fucks with a lion it gets killed and eaten therefore it spends its natural life avoiding lions and drawing their attention.

[Noslack71]

Prior to the creation of the Department of Education in 1979, US high school students consistenly (1969- 1980) ranked in the top ten when compared to other industrialized nations. Today, our students rank somewhere between 19-22.The teachers union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party. IMO it is madness give any political party dominion over the education of our children. IMO, it appears that our children are being taught what to think vs how to think. We are seeing the results with Antifa, Democratic Socialists, et al.