Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Trump Rallies and the misunderstood First Amendment

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Roswell GA
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Did his poll numbers go up?
    (or should it be pole?)
    Life happens while you're making other plans
    1995 Caterham Crossflow RHD
    1990 Miata
    2013 Mini (Her's)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitcat View Post
    I just spent an inordinate amount of time listening to talk radio and watching cable news shows opine, incorrectly, on the First Amendment (whilst visiting with an under-the-weather relative). So knowing the vast reach of our Forum, I am going to post here and straighten this whole thing out once and for all (Or at least get it off my chest).
    OK-The First Amendment simply says that CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the right to free speech. After 2+ centuries of Constitutional amendments (like the 14th) and Supreme Court interpretations, the First Amendment is now understood to say the GOVERNMENT shall make no law abridging free speech.
    Is Donald Trump Congress or the government? Of course not. THERFORE, he is free to impose whatever rules he wants at his rally's (dress code, hand salute, signs, whatever he wants-it's his friggin event, he gets to make the rules). And, the citizens who dont care for what he is saying have NO constitutional right to disrupt his rally or to interfere with his right to conduct it however he wants to.
    End of discussion.
    IF protesters want to protest, they must so outside the rally venue.
    IF the talking heads' interpretation of free speech were right, then anyone could interfere with any group's efforts to assemble and express their thoughts, as loudly and inappropriately as they want. In other words: dont like the Catholic religion, go into their service every Sunday and disrupt it, dont like a lecture being given on a nearby campus, attend and yell until it shuts down.
    So all the First Amendment means is, for instance, that no government agency can establish standards defining what we are allowed to say. The First Amendment has a very, very, very limited scope and application. Which is, of course, totally consistent with the Framers' belief that people would do best with as little government control of their speech and thoughts as possible.
    I am no fan of the Donald or his rabble-rousing speeches. I am just saying that the First Amendment gives me zero authority to enter his rally and to disrupt it, or even to enter wearing a Rubio T-shirt or to hold up a Cruz sign inside the rally.
    I feel better aleady-And I know that, since this is a private (Non-government) Forum, with its own rules, the moderators can delete this post and I will have suffered no violation of my First Amendment rights.
    One person's rights end where another's begin.

    As that pertains to the First Amendment, you are free to say anything you want in response to someone else's speech. However, once you start drowning them out or otherwise preventing them from speaking, you are no longer within the right of free speech protected by the First.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Lines get blurred when the "CEO of the USA" doesn't understand USA's own Terms of Service

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mwswp0u.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	36.4 KB 
ID:	15511  

    2001 Caterham Superlight R

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    3,520

    Default

    All very interesting but the First Amendment is irrelevant to your points.

    For instance: Google, Facebook, Twitter are not government entities. So they can ban whatever they want, including "hate speech" and we can all stuff it.

    However, if the government said to Google, you must regulate "hate speech", then (since the government IS the ONLY subject of the First Amendment), that ban might run afoul of the 1st Amendments protections.

    Ditto loud, impolite speakers: the First Amendment has no position on them, tho common decency might. But if the President ordered that no one could shout their loud support of AOC in Washington DC, then, again, since he's the government his order would violate the Constitution.

    The Founding Fathers were mostly concerned about government over reach. (And such things as keeping religion out of government, and protecting states rights). They did not address the degree to which private citizens and organizations imposed rules on themselves.

    My basic point is simple: the First Amendment is incredibly limited-it just applies to the government.
    Last edited by Kitcat; 06-09-2019 at 03:30 PM.
    '97 Caterham Super Sprint, 1700 Crossflow-sold
    '09 Birkin S3, Duratec-sold
    '03 Caterham Zetec track car

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitcat View Post
    My basic point is simple: the First Amendment is incredibly limited-it just applies to the government.
    Your point is correct but it's also irrelevant when it's not enforced or understood by the general public.

    It's sort of like speed limit enforcement. Everybody has their own understanding of how it works and how much you "can speed". Is it a true limit? Is it 5 over? 10 over? Go with traffic? The law has been so muddled in public opinion that even cops aren't sure how to proceed and will rarely if ever give a ticket for under 5mph (yes it does happen, yes it is legal to get a ticket for it, yes I've seen it first hand). Then the stuff goes to courts for arbitration there.

    If you ask the general public today, ~98% of people who follow politics at all will tell you that there has been some kind of constitutional crisis over the last ~10 years (covers all parties) but it was never enforced and nobody got "in trouble" for it in the executive branch even with blatant and documented violations.


    Laws and policies and rights only hold meanings when they are enforced.
    2001 Caterham Superlight R

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    553

    Default

    It all seems pretty simple to me.
    "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."

    Since ONLY Congress authors any bills that might become law, the wording is accurate. The only difficulty comes from people who misinterpret the term "free speech", and believe they can say whatever they like without consequences or repercussions.

    edit: 1st amendment as it pertains to free speech is fully enforced; Congress has made no laws abridging free speech.


    REF:
    Schoolhouse Rock video "I'm just a bill": https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
    Last edited by Sean; 06-09-2019 at 07:04 PM.
    Sean

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    It all seems pretty simple to me.
    "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."

    Since ONLY Congress authors any bills that might become law, the wording is accurate. The only difficulty comes from people who misinterpret the term "free speech", and believe they can say whatever they like without consequences or repercussions.

    edit: 1st amendment as it pertains to free speech is fully enforced; Congress has made no laws abridging free speech.


    REF:
    Schoolhouse Rock video "I'm just a bill": https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
    Unfortunately it's not quite all that simple or otherwise courts and supreme Court wouldn't struggle and debate with this over the years. Pretty much all Constitutional wording has been open to interpretation of intent. Justified or not. Just look at how 2nd amendment has been executed and enforced over the years.

    Here is a good breakdown of rulings over freedom of speech that set precedent


    https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...rces/what-does
    2001 Caterham Superlight R

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Frozen Northeast
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Thanks for the refresher Kitcat. these things are too often misapplied.
    this tread reminds me of a very eloquent exchange between a student protester at a Bush Sr. speech. As security was moving to silence the student the president stopped them and proceeded to calmly debate & reason with the student exposing the fallacies in his protest.
    It has sadly been a long time since we've seen this from any politician.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    3,520

    Default

    Vovchandr:

    I'd add NY Times v. Sullivan (1964) to your Sup Ct free speech list. That case established a different and higher standard for winning a libel case against a public individual (say the U.S.Prez), as opposed to John Q citizen. That decision insulates the publisher of falsehoods about such a public person, unless actual malice is proven (good luck with that). In other words, incorrect statements, honestly made, are not actionable. Which is why Trump complains about the "horrible" N.Y.Times decision constantly in his daily "fake news" laments (as he is constitutionally permitted to do).

    The made-up internet political hit-job stories that have become so popular of late probably are examples of actionable, not protected speech.

    There isn't always a bright line between what is and isn't protected. In NYT, the court opted to err on the side of encouraging open, if flawed, debate.
    '97 Caterham Super Sprint, 1700 Crossflow-sold
    '09 Birkin S3, Duratec-sold
    '03 Caterham Zetec track car

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,254

    Default

    I’m just happy that Yellowss7 has gone on an Alaskan cruise otherwise this spat could turn into a real food fight!
    Mike
    2010 Caterham CSR with Cosworth 2.3 Duratec
    2018 Caterham 420R with 2L Duratec 210hp at Donington UK
    1975 BMW CSL Group 4 (restoration - engine and dry sump install time)
    1977 Holden Torana "A9X" (awaiting restoration)
    1985 Holden Commodore Group A (restoration - engine rebuild)
    1982 Ferrari 400i (will repaint to original color in 2020)
    1965 Ford Mustang Fastback "Holman Moody"
    1992 Ford Escort RS Cosworth WRC (fettling after long period of storage)
    1990 Range Rover 2 door Classic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •