Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NY Democrats Claim Free Speech is Privilege, Not a Right!

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
October 6, 2011 1:21:35 PM

From Daily Tech...

New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked

The Bill is proposed by New York Senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci, and David Valesky and is response to cyber-bullying. This Bill is attempting to redefine what "freedom of speech" means.
Quote:
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
This is blatant censorship and flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is cornerstone of the American Republic. Silence the People and only the government can speak.

Another example of creeping socialism.

You can reach the above Senators through their websites;
Jeff Klein
Diane Savino
David Carlucci
David Valesky
October 6, 2011 1:29:05 PM

Free speech is important ... but it doesn't include hate speech or encouraging others to engage in terrorist activities.

Nobdy should have that right.
October 6, 2011 1:30:09 PM

I've said it before. If you pay attention long enough, these people will eventually slip up and reveal exactly who they are and what they believe in.

Freedom of speech, as defined by the founders, expressly protects political speech. The kind that got you thrown in jail or hung for sedition during those times.

Any effort to restrict political speech will lead to the same.
October 6, 2011 1:57:40 PM

actually , according to the Supreme Court 'Hate Speech' is also covered by the 1st. the kkk, neo-nazis, Muslims like the Al Alawki that was recently killed, (even a certain preacher, who would 'God Bless America? no I say God DAMN America ;) ) and other idiots are free to speak their mind and even peacefully assemble and say pretty much whatever they want. what they cannot do is 'endanger the public' , things like Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater when there is no fire, such as to cause a stampede. and Cyber-Bullying is a problem (so is regular Bullying) this is just not going to help.
This is a baby step, a toe in the water to test for controling opposition speach.

'I may disagree COMPLETELY with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it' -- Voltaire

'If Congress were an Idiot, but I repeat myself..." -- Mark Twain
October 6, 2011 3:02:04 PM

Reynod said:
Free speech is important ... but it doesn't include hate speech or encouraging others to engage in terrorist activities.

Nobdy should have that right.
While hate speech is not favorable and a moral people would condemn it (and the majority of Americans do condemn it), hate speech is a right and protected under the Constitution. Hate speech is part of the price Americans pay in return for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom. Obviously, some folks are better at dealing with that responsibility and liberty than others.
Quote:
1st Amendment: 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.
ltrazaklt said:
Cyber-Bullying is a problem (so is regular Bullying) this is just not going to help.
Agreed! Anti-cyberbullying laws will be as effective as the Brady Bill was at preventing crime. I still say the best way to deal with a bully is to turn the tables and use the bully's tactics of intimidation, embarrassment, and if necessary opening up a big can of whoop-a$s! Well, at least that's what worked for me...

October 6, 2011 4:16:25 PM

Thankfully chunky we don't tolerate hate speech here ... as the US constitution doesn't apply.

Therefore I can delete it at will under the TOU for the site.

Users in the US may feel they have the right to post it ... I have the right to delete it.

I think I am doing the rest of the world a service.

Pretty happy about that.

:) 
October 6, 2011 4:36:06 PM

Reynod said:
Thankfully chunky we don't tolerate hate speech here ... as the US constitution doesn't apply.

Therefore I can delete it at will under the TOU for the site.

Users in the US may feel they have the right to post it ... I have the right to delete it.

I think I am doing the rest of the world a service.

Pretty happy about that.

:) 



Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin would strongly agree with you.
October 6, 2011 5:19:30 PM

I didnt think the Hitler would get pulled out so soon.....Not surprising.

Hey oldman how would you feel if I slipped Anti tea party propaganda under your door? Or I came to your place of business and and made unfair statements about your mother?

A website is like a business by accepting their terms of use you agree to follow the rules. Same way that little sign says no shoes, no shirt, no service when you enter the gas station.

Its illegal to yell fire in a movie theater and its against the TOU to graphically describe your love for the GOP. Both of them will end awkwardly with little chance of being let back (Or getting a refund)
October 6, 2011 5:25:25 PM

Hate speech shouldn't be tolerated within the confines of any forum like this, especially when each user is equally subject to the TOU. Censorship and subjective interpretations of the TOU is another matter altogether, regardless of the subject. I can appreciate moderating THG is not an easy task, but thankfully Reynod, you and the other mods wield the Delete Hammer with a fair hand. Just another reason I keep coming back. :) 

Cheers!
October 6, 2011 5:37:15 PM

Freedom of Speech does not mean the right to expropriate a private forum for that speech. The GOVERNMENT may not restrict that right, but private interests are not so enjoined.
October 6, 2011 6:33:22 PM

I forgot to add Woodrow Wilson to that list.
October 6, 2011 7:00:27 PM

Anyone remember the free speech zones?

October 6, 2011 7:08:51 PM

"Socialist agenda." Is that coming from the Faciast agenda?

The ACLU, which is well known for their Liberalism, famously defended the KKK, for thier right to demonstrate on MLK day during a civial rights celebration.

This is America, not Italy, or Pre WW2 Germany ok. I can not stand it when ding bats put Stalin and Hitler in the same category.

Hitler was right wing

Stalin was left wing,

They where bitterly opposed to eachother's views. And by the way,we fought with the Soviets along with Stalin. We where ally's.

Socialism itself is not to be confused with communism. Because socialism is far more to the center where communism is the extreme left. Got it?

I don't know if cyberbullying should be concidered a criminal ofence, I think it would be more appropriate to be able to make it a civil liability case. IE Law Suite for monetary compensation.

Slander someone on print, webpage, TV. Risk getting sued. That sounds fair to me.
October 6, 2011 7:20:16 PM

"Another example of creeping socialism." What?

I'm not a socialist, I just know political ideologies. You are mistaking socialism with the failed communist systems that, while claiming communism, were just despotic systems of government. It would be wise to rephrase your concerns into "Another example of creeping despotism/tyranny/oppression."

Unless you enjoy pandering misinformation...

But yes, this is a terrible idea. I am all about the "marketplace of ideas." I know Marx would agree.
October 6, 2011 7:51:49 PM

Socialism is the idea that the government outright owns and controls industrys in it's country such as oil and coal, and natural gas companies. The profits go to the people. Which makes sence to me. Those mineral rights should be public domain.

The U.S. is about the only major industrilized country that allows private instatutions to control vital energy interests.

On the subject of free speech. Check out the land mark supreme court case, that allows corparations to annanously fund political compains. Supreme Court’s Citizens United case says that corporations have the same rights as individuals.

In my opinion. Corporations are not individuals, and should not have the same rights as individuals. The constitution was designed for the right of the individual. Corporations are legal entities on paper, not people.

Also keep in mind owners of corporations can be from anywhere in the world. And can be owned by other corporations. Say a corporation owned by a Socialist government, in say China.

Do you support the People's Replic of China secretely funding a political campain here in the United States? I think not.

So you can thank the Repblican Pro-Business, anti peoples vioce on this one. Because in elections, money talks, how can any one compete against corporate funding in political ads? The vioce of corporation are going to drown out the vioce of the people. Capitalism trumping freedom.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65194.html
October 6, 2011 7:52:17 PM

I wasn't referring to Socialism or Communism. I was referring to totalitarian type regimes who completely controlled the media, political speech, and even thought.

Anyway, to Americans, Socialism and Communism are both far left wing philosophies and should be avoided like the plague.

October 6, 2011 8:05:32 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:


Anyway, to Americans, Socialism and Communism are both far left wing philosophies and should be avoided like the plague.


Too bad.
You had everything to become a great civilized country.
Anyway, i agree with you concerning the free speech.
October 6, 2011 8:19:30 PM

gropouce said:
Too bad.
You had everything to become a great civilized country.
Anyway, i agree with you concerning the free speech.



gropouce, you made a funny! :D 
October 6, 2011 11:55:15 PM

jonainpdx said:
Socialism is the idea that the government outright owns and controls industrys in it's country such as oil and coal, and natural gas companies. The profits go to the people. Which makes sence to me. Those mineral rights should be public domain.

The U.S. is about the only major industrilized country that allows private instatutions to control vital energy interests.

On the subject of free speech. Check out the land mark supreme court case, that allows corparations to annanously fund political compains. Supreme Court’s Citizens United case says that corporations have the same rights as individuals.

In my opinion. Corporations are not individuals, and should not have the same rights as individuals. The constitution was designed for the right of the individual. Corporations are legal entities on paper, not people.

Also keep in mind owners of corporations can be from anywhere in the world. And can be owned by other corporations. Say a corporation owned by a Socialist government, in say China.

Do you support the People's Replic of China secretely funding a political campain here in the United States? I think not.

So you can thank the Repblican Pro-Business, anti peoples vioce on this one. Because in elections, money talks, how can any one compete against corporate funding in political ads? The vioce of corporation are going to drown out the vioce of the people. Capitalism trumping freedom.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65194.html

You can pull an Obama and blame whomever you want, but its these particular dems thatre doing this, and pointing fingers wont change this.

If any, I repeat, any pol tries to do this, they should be banned from office and tried in court, misrepresenting to do harm to the peoples, with good sentence as well.
October 7, 2011 12:11:05 AM

What do you need rights for anyway ?
October 7, 2011 12:30:45 AM

Liberty, it used to mean something.
October 7, 2011 12:36:02 AM

We need to fundamentaly change America, because the constitution limits what government can do for you
October 7, 2011 12:42:54 AM

jonainpdx said:
Socialism is the idea that the government outright owns and controls industrys in it's country such as oil and coal, and natural gas companies. The profits go to the people. Which makes sence to me. Those mineral rights should be public domain.


Allowing one central authority to control an entire nation's 'resources' invites corruption and stifles innovation. The authority ultimately must choose who to award contracts to. History demonstrates (without variance) that power brokers end up running the show. These individuals accept 'favors' in return for 'favors' and resource rights are then granted to the chosen few. This is why banks get bailed-out. This is why GM and Chrysler still exist despite decades of failure. The centralization directly leads to an explosion (haha pun) of militarism and a constant sense of alarm from the people. The further the authority becomes centralized, the more problems develop (such as wars and economic distress). This is because people ultimately cannot control their own lives, let alone the lives of others.

From Europe's past colonial struggles to the present day EU meltdown, these problems can be attributed to an embrace of socialism and the abandonment of individual merit and achievement. Young people in Europe enjoy the highest rate of unemployment anywhere outside Africa. Why do you think they are demonstrating? The further they socialize their system, the further the system drags them down. The embrace of the socialist EU and the Euro monetary unit was the latest chapter of Europe's history of wealth redistribution. Ask the Germans how they feel about carrying the rest of Europe on their hardworking backs. It will be very interesting to see whether they keep pouring the gasoline of socialism on their fires. In the past, this has always led to war.
October 7, 2011 12:56:56 AM

The EU needs to double or triple what theyre giving Greece, maybe quadruple it, then do it again when that money runs out.
Same for Portugal, if they dont, surely theyve lost their moral compass

PS Dont forget about the Irish, as in blazing saddles
October 7, 2011 1:11:01 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The EU needs to double or triple what theyre giving Greece, maybe quadruple it, then do it again when that money runs out.
Same for Portugal, if they dont, surely theyve lost their moral compass

PS Dont forget about the Irish, as in blazing saddles



Haha, yeah I totally agree. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain! Makes a hell of an acronym!
October 7, 2011 1:51:26 AM

spikey_monkey said:
"Another example of creeping socialism." What?

I'm not a socialist, I just know political ideologies. You are mistaking socialism with the failed communist systems that, while claiming communism, were just despotic systems of government. It would be wise to rephrase your concerns into "Another example of creeping despotism/tyranny/oppression."

Unless you enjoy pandering misinformation...

But yes, this is a terrible idea. I am all about the "marketplace of ideas." I know Marx would agree.
Speaking of Marx and the marketplace of ideas, I wonder if these NY Senators read the same article?

Taking issue with my use of the word "socialism" seems a bit pedantic and implying pandering misinformation is just in bad form.

But hey, at least you agree that what these NY Senators are proposing is a bad idea.
October 7, 2011 2:33:42 AM

The EUs problems are really easy to fix, according to their own beliefs.
They need to redistribute all the money from the better off countries, where their old Marks etc are currently running too high compared to the Euro.
If they pay their fair share to Greece, Ireland, Portugal etc, then their Marks etc will be devalued, and everything will even out.
I say maybe 30-40% more taxes from the better off countries, to help the poorer countries

PS Wheres Gulli when they need him, Im sure my nubers are too low, and more taxes need be paid out, lifting up those in need.
Have more money ummm ideas to use?
October 7, 2011 5:39:18 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
We need to fundamentaly change America, because the constitution limits what government can do for you


To you ?
October 7, 2011 10:17:02 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin would strongly agree with you.



As would pretty much the rest of the world.

Its only the terrorists,racists, bigots, religious zealots, and chauvinists in this world that feel the need to send around messages of hate .

The rest of us normal people don't need it thanks.

Hate speech is specifically mentioned in the TOU for this site ... twice.

October 7, 2011 12:43:46 PM

Reynod said:
As would pretty much the rest of the world.

Its only the terrorists,racists, bigots, religious zealots, and chauvinists in this world that feel the need to send around messages of hate .

The rest of us normal people don't need it thanks.

Hate speech is specifically mentioned in the TOU for this site ... twice.



How convenient for you. Can you define hate speech please?

Would you define this as hate speech?


reynod says:

"We were doing fine here before you turned up ... check the posts for your self .. those facts are clear ... I rewrite nothing.

My posts in the moderator section (which you have no access) predate your arrival by months.

This forum area did not magically increase after you turned up pal.

I regret nominating you for community reporter in this area ... frankly your not a good role model in my mind.

All you do is polarise and encourage racist and pro-white christian views.

You have no tolerance of other religions and actively post anti-muslim rhetoric.

You have no compassion for the poor and the weak.

Frankly your pathetic.


Enjoy your day."
October 7, 2011 12:51:25 PM

That just about sums it up.
October 7, 2011 1:09:54 PM

That's funny considering I am half native American and not a Christian.
October 7, 2011 1:39:13 PM

Like color of skin should ever matter.
If people want to put people in boxes, those are just short cuts to misunderstandings, as we should all know by now
October 7, 2011 1:57:03 PM

No, it doesn't and shouldn't matter jaydee. I pasted that rant of reynod's to illustrate his hypocrisy.

reynod disagrees with me politically (which is ok) and is using the "pathetic, white, racist, christian" label to rationalize shutting people up and shouting them down.

This is a very old tactic designed to marginalize an individual's principles and values.
October 7, 2011 1:57:04 PM

The First Amendment protects against Congress making any law that prohibits free speech or expression. This includes hate speech, or any speech or expression except those which create a clear and present danger. This right is protected.

The Community Team here at Tom's is not Congress. The forum, while welcoming to all, is privately owned and operated by a private business (like all forums) which may establish parameters as to what is and what is not acceptable on the premises. Just like you have a freedom of religion, you probably can't use the local Catholic church for a Wiccan mass. And though you have a right to assemble, Walmart is unlikely to allow you to host a pro-Union rally on Aisle 5 next to the rollback on candy bars.

Hate speech, as defined in our terms, is not permitted on our forums. That includes any attacks on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. I can more deeply define that in the terms, if required.

Now that this is clarified, please resume discussion of the original post.
October 7, 2011 2:12:03 PM

So should we defend the Westboro baptists choice to picket Steve Jobs funeral?
October 7, 2011 2:24:45 PM

Defend = freedom to assemble
Do not defend = motive


Theres a difference.

[/coming from a US military man...]
October 7, 2011 2:48:24 PM

wanamingo said:
So should we defend the Westboro baptists choice to picket Steve Jobs funeral?



We have a responsibility to defend their rights; even if we do not agree with them. However, they do not have a right to trample on others' rights by exercising their own.

A funeral could be argued to be an 'assembly' of like minded people. Therefore the Westboro folks can not disrupt the funeral assembly in the exercise of their rights and freedoms. I think a couple hundred yards away would work.
October 7, 2011 2:50:23 PM

Yea, Reynod... I really don't seem to get it. About 3 people have corrected you about the fact that Hate Speech/Freedom of such, of course doesn't apply on a private forum - not to mention one that isn't based in America. Anytime an American mentions 1st Amendment Rights, we are discussing an issue with regards to our own framework of Government.

The logic of why Hate Speech should be allowed (from an American POV) is fairly easy to comprehend. One is free to say whatever the hells they want, but one is NOT free from the repercussions of what was said. Sure, Neo-Nazis can get up in America and speak their mind, and at the same time can out themselves to the rest of the world and disgust enough normal people that they rally against them. Sure the Dixie Chicks can get on stage and use their platform to criticize a sitting President, and at the same time can lose tons of their fans and suffer boycotts.


Here in the US one might be free to say something, but no one should kid themselves that there are no consequences of that speech.
October 7, 2011 3:17:16 PM

"We have a responsibility to defend their rights; even if we do not agree with them. However, they do not have a right to trample on others' rights by exercising their own. "

^ and therein lies equality

PS I'll add that not only is it the law, it also allows for grace, for appreciation of one another willing to stick up, or even fight for others rights
October 7, 2011 3:39:45 PM

19996,31,810907 said:
That just about sums it up.[/quotems

;) 
October 7, 2011 3:47:15 PM

chunkymonster said:
While hate speech is not favorable and a moral people would condemn it (and the majority of Americans do condemn it), hate speech is a right and protected under the Constitution. Hate speech is part of the price Americans pay in return for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom. Obviously, some folks are better at dealing with that responsibility and liberty than others.
Quote:
1st Amendment: 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.
Agreed! Anti-cyberbullying laws will be as effective as the Brady Bill was at preventing crime. I still say the best way to deal with a bully is to turn the tables and use the bully's tactics of intimidation, embarrassment, and if necessary opening up a big can of whoop-a$s! Well, at least that's what worked for me...



HA HA i second that! When i was in high school one of my best friends was picking on people so a slap him in the back of his head!
October 7, 2011 4:15:24 PM

Every time I quote the president, I get voted down
Now, maybe the prez isnt popular, or his words are the wrong words
Or only certain ways of these words are to be interpreted, which can only mean, theyre very vague to begin with, which is my point, and are relevant here
October 7, 2011 4:52:01 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
How convenient for you. Can you define hate speech please?

Would you define this as hate speech?


reynod says:

"We were doing fine here before you turned up ... check the posts for your self .. those facts are clear ... I rewrite nothing.

My posts in the moderator section (which you have no access) predate your arrival by months.

This forum area did not magically increase after you turned up pal.

I regret nominating you for community reporter in this area ... frankly your not a good role model in my mind.

All you do is polarise and encourage racist and pro-white christian views.

You have no tolerance of other religions and actively post anti-muslim rhetoric.

You have no compassion for the poor and the weak.

Frankly your pathetic.


Enjoy your day."



Oldman that post was to send you a clear and frank message about your attitude in these forums ... which you still don't seem to get.

It wasn't hate speech ... I became sick and tired of you undeleting posts, reopening threads which I had closed and generally ignoring my comments about curbing your behaviour in these forums.

the fact that you reposted this clearly out of context says a lot more about you as a childish, petty and vindictive individual than it does about my apparently "dictatorial" approach in this forum area.

I consider that I am pretty tolerant and like to have a laugh just like everyone else.

You however seem to revel in negative, provocative and polarising topics which almost always ends up in most parties becoming angry.

Psychologically I don't consider that healthy.



October 7, 2011 5:00:09 PM

You posted the above and I am the petty child? Seriously?

What you consider negative, provocative, and polarising I consider informative, and mainstream. I link stories from the Blaze because you can't find them anywhere else. Not because it's "fringe" but because no other media outlet will report it. I consider that informative of the Blaze and censorship by the other media outlets.

The truth has no agenda. If the truth is inflammatory to you then I suggest you are the one who is not psychologically healthy.
October 7, 2011 5:21:13 PM

Oh Christ Rey now he thinks hes a martyr.
October 7, 2011 5:36:42 PM

Is that a carp?
October 7, 2011 5:39:31 PM

wanamingo said:
Oh Christ Rey now he thinks hes a martyr.



No clue what deranged logic you used to reach that conclusion, but whatever.
October 7, 2011 6:35:19 PM

wanamingo said:
So should we defend the Westboro baptists choice to picket Steve Jobs funeral?
As deplorable as the Westboro fv*knuts (aka, God Hates Fags) are, yes, we should defend their right to assemble. But Knarl said it well with his post...
Quote:
...but no one should kid themselves that there are no consequences of that speech.
...so, with that said, I'm going to organize a protest every time one of the Westboro fv*knuts dies. Wanna join my mailing list?
October 7, 2011 6:58:58 PM

From what I see, someone seems like they are a fox news outlet.
!