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

[Nim Chimpsky]

i said this:

in total there are millions of jobs open. there are lots of jobs open just a lot of people arent qualified.

Ooh, sorry, I had you confused for the other guy.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

Ooh, sorry, I had you confused for the other guy.

ive done that b4. very embarrasing.

 

[chunkymonster]

Actually the founders left it open enough for the 5th Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts and for the 65th Congress to pass the Sedition Act of 1918. It was only in the 1960s that the people won the freedom of speech we have today.

Not sure how the Alien and Sedition Acts apply to free speech, can you explain further?

I interpret that Alien and Sedition Acts, and the subsequent ruling that they were unconstitutional, as confirming the natural laws stated in the 1st Amendment. Unless, that's what you also mean, in which case, I am over thinking your statement.

 

[chunkymonster]

Methinks Elmo is a Libertarian. I'd be curious to see where you fall with this quiz.

Yep... Herman Cain and many Republicans believe the same thing.

I would hope that you believe that anyone who understands the intent and establishment of America as a republic would believe the same thing and not continue the dichotomy that only Republicans believe the same thing. Issues like this, and opposition to the legislation proposed by these NY Senators, transcend Democrat/Republican and are against the very foundation of principles of the American Republic.

Star Wars got it all wrong. The real battle is not between Jedi and Sith (Republic and Empire) but rather Order (War) vs. Chaos (Peace). Most people figure that Chaos is synonymous with War and Indecision but this couldn't be further from the truth. People get annoyed and irritated when they're told that they cannot behave a certain way because someone else disagrees with that method of behavior even when that behavior has no ill affects towards anyone. This is someone attempting to institute an order over others.

In Star Wars the hero ends up being the Centrist Luke Skywalker who brings "Balance" to the force by learning to use his emotions to guide him but reason as well. Learning to trust his feelings while not allowing them to control him. Basically becoming a Democrat.

Dude, Star Wars? Sorry, but you lose points for using Star Wars in this analogy. Luke a democrat? HAHAHAHA! He was a Jedi, like his father before him!

Chaos by definition is an utter state of confusion, hereto indecision. It is inherent in human nature to abhor chaos. I also think that chaos leads to the entropy of ideas. However, I do agree Chaos, in of itself, does not equal war.

This is a false dichotomy as any imposition upon another creates an element of uncertainty. That is to say that every action is followed by a reaction. That reaction is based on choices that people make. If you piss off people enough and take away enough of their choices... they will cease to believe in the righteousness of your cause. This is the unfortunate truth with regards to Federalism (or any other form of Statism).

I believe that America has proven republicanism and the sovereignty of the States has stood the test of time. It is a result of a movement away from republicanism and a result of continued push of political ideologies over the foundation of the American republic that the People have lost faith in the righteousness of causes. American republicanism has been under scrutiny as a result of the rise of socialism, centralized government, and centralized federal authority.

All ideas and perspectives ought to be able to freely compete in an open and fair market place. This means no Central Authority (over time I would argue) and the full respect of Voluntary Social/Economic Contracts between willing participants. Want Universal Single Payer health care? Find others that also support this idea, form a social contract and pool your resources together. Want less taxation then don't sign any social contracts and go at it alone.

I think that following the Constitution and limiting Federalism to the powers outlined in it achieve the desired outcome outlined by the above statement.

This was impossible in the days when Proudhon thought it up... with with a method of communication such as the Internet... anything is possible it seems.

I agree with some of Proudhon's ideas, especially the concept that the only legitimate source of property is labor, what someone produces is their own property, and his opposition to State ownership. But in the big picture, his theories (like Marx) are not pragmatic and only make for good ideological discussion.

Old ideas die hard... time to end any notion of Republic or Empire. They're false dichotomies.

Ideas that have stood the test of time and that have been proven are the hardest to kill. To end the American republic is to end America as we know it.

Peace (and I really mean it).

And peace be with you!

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

Not sure how the Alien and Sedition Acts apply to free speech, can you explain further?

I interpret that Alien and Sedition Acts, and the subsequent ruling that they were unconstitutional, as confirming the natural laws stated in the 1st Amendment. Unless, that's what you also mean, in which case, I am over thinking your statement.

From Wikipedia: "The Sedition Act ... made it a crime to publish 'false, scandalous, and malicious writing' against the government or its officials. ...
"The Republican prediction that the Sedition Act would be used as a tool to assure the primacy of the Federalists was confirmed by the fact that no Federalist editor was indicted for equally rough language towards Republicans. John C. Miller writes that 'the Sedition Act was not construed to mean that the Federalists were to cease maligning and whipping Jefferson', who was, among numerous other assertions, called a 'vain author, false prophet, and thorough-bred Frenchman.'"

Since it was so openly political, the Supreme Court found it easy to strike down. But what do you make of the later Sedition Act, and the progress for free speech in the 60s?

 

[chunkymonster]

But what do you make of the later Sedition Act, and the progress for free speech in the 60s?

Good question! The Sedition Acts in the 1960's (NY Times vs the U.S. and NY Times vs Sullivan), IMO, upheld the 1st Amendment by allowing the media to report on government civil rights abuses and put the burden of liable on the liabled; hence actual malice.

It was never intended for the government to hide or suppress the People's or media's ability to report the facts, this was the position of Jefferson and embodied in his statement...

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

...aside from Jefferson's opinion on the People being capable of reading newspaper, which is another topic altogether, I believe that Jefferson's position on the transparency of government is pretty clear.

To retain some context though, the Acts themselves applied only to the government's ability to prohibit Free Speech. The Acts never tackled or touched on the media's ability to report on private matters or prohibiting the media's ability to print news pertaining to the general public or businesses; reporting on these matters was and is understood to be a matter of fact.

On the flip-side, State and Federal government should be able to retain the ability to withhold information under the guise of national security and matters of the State. It would be naive to not think that some information is better left unsaid, unwritten, or unreported if the consequences subvert the 5th Amendment, undermine State and Federal sovereignty, and inhibit government's ability to carry out their duties relegated in the Constitution. Ultimately, I think President Johnson passing the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 is the codification of this principle.

 

[Nim Chimpsky]

That all makes sense. I guess I'm saying that it's important to look at how the law is applied. It doesn't seem to be start coming down consistently on the side of free speech until the 60s, which makes sense considering the huge social movements in its favor. So while the Constitution mandates it, we've seen a broader, more comprehensive enforcement.