Americans want to change the first amendment according to a new poll

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago

   According to a new poll that was taken, it seems a lot of Americans want the first amendment to be changed, as some feel jail time and/or a possible fine should be given to anyone who does "hate speech", which isn't defined that easily.
   
   Here's a link to the site in question that shows these results:
   
   https://www.campaignforfreespeech.org/f … ing-finds/
   
   Assuming you read the online article, what are your thoughts on this?  Is the first amendment outdated and need  to be changed?  And if you think it is, then should Americans be punished for any kind of alleged "hate speech" that may offend others' sensibilities on any level?  Please discuss.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      A line from the link kind of says it all: "If the government is in charge of determining what is hate speech, then it inevitably becomes political—a weapon that can be used to punish people on the other side of an issue."
      
      I see a future where you are punished for not being PC - something changes every month as someone, somewhere, is sure to be "offended" by what is said.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         That's funny, based on exactly the same information, I see a future where you can be punished for having the audacity to suggest Trump is not the savior of the human race. Already, if you work work in government and don't worship Trump, then apparently you are guilty of treason according to Trump and his acolytes. Apparently thinking the current president is an irrational, unstable, sexist, racist oaf is now treasonable offense.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, Don - we all know you have a real burr about Trump and will take every opportunity to denigrate him or anyone connected or anyone approving of anything he does.
            
            But is it really appropriate to hijack every line of thought on the net to do so?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I’m challenging the assumption some people have that freedom of expression means conservatives being able to say what they want but everyone else having to toe the line or be accused of being treasonous or hating their country. That’s a form of political correctness and highlights the hypocritical views some people have on the subject of freedom of expression. Donald Trump happens to be a case in point.
               
               Also, it’s only denigrating if it’s unfair or untrue. Nothing I said is either.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Trumpeters don't like us pointing out what Trump says and dpes. They carefully cover their ears and close their eyes to avoid the ugly truth. Heck, Lindsay Graham won't even read the impeachment proceedings becAuse it might mean he would have to do his job as a U.S. Senator.
                  
                  The big,,beautiful wall of denial must be carefully guarded from reality to remain strong.

                  replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I see.  I didn't get that from anything that has been said - perhaps it arose out of trying to denigrate anyone not on the "Hate Trump" bandwagon?
                  
                  "Yes, Don - we all know you have a real burr about Trump and will take every opportunity to denigrate him or anyone connected or anyone approving of anything he does."
                  
                  "Also, it’s only denigrating if it’s unfair or untrue. Nothing I said is either."
                  
                  " having the audacity to suggest Trump is not the savior of the human race. Already, if you work work in government and don't worship Trump, then apparently you are guilty of treason according to Trump and his acolytes. Apparently thinking the current president is an irrational, unstable, sexist, racist oaf is now treasonable offense."
                  
                  Not a single one of these charges has any hint of truth.  Which is what I said; denigrate Trump " or anyone connected or anyone approving of anything he does."

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     You should have said, I'm more than happy to annotate my comment for you:
                     
                     "That's funny, based on exactly the same information, I see a future where you can be punished for having the audacity to suggest Trump is not the savior of the human race."
                     
                     You referred to a line in the article that said: "If the government is in charge of determining what is hate speech, then it inevitably becomes political—a weapon that can be used to punish people on the other side of an issue".
                     
                     I'm pointing out that when I read that, I think of how the current government is trying to intimidate anyone who says anything critical of Trump, and how his supporters (including you) try to silence valid criticism by referring to it as hate speech. You literally call such criticism "Trump hate". Yet here you are lamenting about "...a future where you are punished for not being PC". So I'm commenting on the irony and hypocrisy of that.
                     
                     "Already, if you work work in government and don't worship Trump, then apparently you are guilty of treason according to Trump and his acolytes."
                     
                     There's lots of examples where people who have spent a life in public service are maligned because they are critical of Donald Trump, i.e. they are saying things which (to you and other Trump supporters) are "politically incorrect" or literally considered "hate" speech.
                     
                     "Apparently thinking the current president is an irrational, unstable, sexist, racist oaf is now treasonable offense".
                     
                     Again, I'm illustrating the fact that people have been accused of all sorts of things by Trump and his supporters just for stating their opinions about Trump. From hating America, all the way through to "treason". Yet, those same people are the first to whine about having their freedom of speech restricted. Again, I'm pointing out the irony, and challenging the assumption that freedom of speech means conservatives saying what they want, while liberals are accused of "hate" and "treason" for doing exactly the same.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        And you don't feel that saying people actually think "Trump is the savior of the human race." is not insulting anyone?  You actually think people worship Trump, and that it is insulting to say that?  You truly believe that people think that if you say Trump is "an irrational, unstable, sexist, racist oaf" the it violates US code concerning Treason, and that it is therefore not insulting to declare it so?
                        
                        Personally I find these ideas all insulting; they are all simply exaggerations and fibs and you know it well.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I saw a Trump voter focus group.on television a couple of days ago. The one who is still steadfastly behind Trump (not all of them still are, to their credit) was asked if she would care if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue. She responded, "It would depend on why he shot him."
                           
                           I thought to myself, "that sounds like a wilderness response." Lol

                           replyreport
                        2. 81

                           Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           It is a fact that some people think Trump is a savior:
                           
                           "Mike Pompeo says it's 'certainly' possible that Trump may be the modern-day savior of the Jewish people"
                           https://www.businessinsider.com/pompeo- … ior-2019-3
                           
                           "Only God could deliver such a savior to our nation and only God could allow me to help"
                           https://twitter.com/parscale/status/112 … 09/photo/1
                           
                           I'm sorry that you find this fact insulting, but this is not something I can change.
                           
                           "Personally I find these ideas all insulting; they are all simply exaggerations and fibs and you know it well.
                           
                           Whether you like being told Trump is an irrational, unstable, sexist, racist oaf is not the issue. Would you defend my right to say it, just as I would defend your right to disapprove of it? That's the issue.
                           
                           And again, in this thread you lamented a future where government punishes people by weaponizing the definition of "hate speech", yet also in this thread you described my criticism of Trump as "Trump hate". So who's weaponizing the definition of hate speech? Sadly you don't seem to see the irony of this.

                           replyreport
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        LOL  Kudos, Don!  You should take up politics; they don't mean what they say, either, and are masters at spinning their words into something other than what they say.
                        
                        Very well done!

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           I'd only be accused of hate speech for pointing out that Trump is an unstable ignoramus. Apparently that's what qualifies as hate speech these days.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              And that is something we can actually agree on.  It is to the point that if your speech is not completely PC it is automatically considered "hate" speech.  Exaggeration, as gross as possible, is the name of the game today as it can be useful in raising emotions and that is far more important than providing factual data and encouraging people to make their own conclusions.  They may not, after all, come to the conclusion you want them ti!

                              replyreport
            2. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Until Trump and his insidious corruption and horrific incompetence is gone, yes.
               
               If the house is on fire and half the occupants are preventing the other half from putting it out, should we not yell "fire" every chance we get?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  If someone in the hall "flicks their bic" to light a cigarette or birthday candles, should you yell fire every time you can draw a breath, creating a stampede that harms everyone there?
                  
                  No.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Lol, typical wilderness response.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        And if you don't understand what is being said there, it is a most typical PP response.

                        replyreport
         2. 80

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You are deflecting off subject...  Did you ever consider Trump at most will have 4 more years if elected?  This subject of this thread is interesting, should make one think would we ever want to give up the freedom of speech.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "This subject of this thread is interesting"
               
               Then perhaps you should comment on that, and leave me to comment on what I find interesting. Or am I obliged to post only comments that you approve of? That would be ironic, don't you think.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      slightlyjadedposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Read the link below. It's a case from 1919 and is still used today in courtrooms in regard to hate speech cases.
      
      https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/view … ext=wmborj

      replyreport
2. 80

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago

   Please try to be serious. There is no such thing as 'hate speech.' All the term ever means is whatever is determined to be anti pc at any given moment. It's a BS term for retarded people.
   
   If anything, the term hate speech should be banned as hate speech.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago

   Yeah I think you both are right about this issue.  Honestly, I weep for this country if this poll is even remotely true.  As of right now, I'm just praying this'll be like the time when everyone thought Hilary Clinton was going to win in a landslide according to polls but that didn't turn out to be the case.  I'm hoping its the same case here.  Otherwise, I can definitely see this country turning into a communist nation  within the next  couple of decades from now.

   replyreport