« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free Speech? What's that? - SPLC 

By: starlight in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 16 Oct 17 3:47 AM | 300 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner
Msg. 21691 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 21690 by monkeytrots)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Something you might not know about the SPLC. They are committed to destroying the entities on their hate list -- islamophobes, as they call people who speak of Islam.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free Speech? What's that?
By: monkeytrots
in CONSTITUTION
Wed, 04 Oct 17 6:15 AM
Msg. 21690 of 21975

Starlight and Mr. Wizard - thanks to both of you. Good posts on the subject.

The three most dangerous attacks currently underway against the First Ammendment; in order of clear and present danger:

1.) Major pushes to criminalize 'hate speech'.

2.) Attempts to regulate the internet - making it legal to remove web-sites that are deemed 'fake', 'hateful', or 'promoting terrorism'. Southern Poverty Law Center is front and center on these efforts. Regulation- absolutely - with near monopoly powers those that control Domain Name Service, domain services, hosting services and other basics needed for pubishing on the internet MUST be treated as public utilities - they can NOT remove any web-site because of content or violating some pull-it-out-your-butt 'user agreement'. The expenses of fighting these bass-turds in civil courts basically strip all but the extremely rich of any protections of our rights in these cases.

A contract is a contract. If we are paying for it - it must be honoured. If a site is to be removed for 'criminal activity' - IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH COURT ACTIONS THAT ARE IN ACCORD with our US Constitution - not by some business that simply 'declares' it to be 'illegal' or in 'violation of policies' - or some government bureaucrat, Law enforcemnt, or even the DOJ ruling it is illegal.

3.) Pushes for declaring who are considered 'valid journalists' for purposes of exercising our Rights to Freedom of the Press. This has very explicit results in civil cases especially where 'journalists' are afforded unequal protection against libel charges vs. non-journalists. Very different standards of evidence, proof, and presumptions of innocence.

Yeah- I know #2 goes against a LOT of the current arguments. Property Rights are just as important to libery as First Ammendment Rights - without Property Rigts - it all fails - and you can kiss the First good-bye as being worthless.


« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next