Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Apr 21, 2012, 02:44 PM

Is there any more a complex issue than the First Amendment.

Actually it is the least complex of all the amendments.

What part of "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW....abridging the freedom of speech don't you understand ? Where does it restrict it to individuals ? Answer ,it doesn't .

corporations are about profits, and cheap labor is part of that equation

What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities... They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

talaniman · Apr 21, 2012, 03:19 PM

I think a proper balance so one does not give undo leverage over the other parts of the society is not only fair, but necessary. If your goal is to restrict the many in favor of the few, through literal interpretations, then we disagree greatly as too many things have entered the equation since the writing of the constitution. It's a framework, not an end all,l be all strictly defined document, and a changing world and society have to be served.

This ain't 1776, its 2012. Time to update to fit changing conditions and circumstances. I guess you don't want to recognize those changes and stay in 1776 huh? Wonder what Franklin, or Madison would say about going to the moon, or investing derivatives on the global market? Or paying the slaves minimum wages?

We have grown a lot since they laid the foundations to this country. Maybe its time to get new boots, and stop trying to make the baby shoes fit.

What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities... They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

How about a fair balance? And equal influence. That's what I approve of. What you don't?

paraclete · Apr 21, 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by talaniman

How about a fair balance? And equal influence. Thats what I approve of. What you don't?

Agree with you Tal but you won't get Tom and his ilk to agree, it might cost them their prescious money

tomder55 · Apr 21, 2012, 04:31 PM

Yeah ,my ilk

excon · Apr 21, 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah ,my ilk

Hello again,

I ain't got no ilk.. I don't even have uice..

excon

TUT317 · Apr 22, 2012, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Actually it is the least complex of all the amendments.

What part of "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW....abridging the freedom of speech don't you understand ? Where does it restrict it to individuals ? Answer ,it doesn't .

What about non-profits ? What about labor associations , what about charities ...They are all corporations too. I'll say it again ,you are only interested in putting restrictions on the rights of corporations you don't approve of.

Just so there is no confusion, Tom is addressing my concerns in his first response, and Tal in his second.

I would rather not respond to Tom's question to me relation freedom of speech.

Tut

paraclete · Apr 22, 2012, 05:47 PM

It's OK Tut they have many freedoms over there excepting the freedom of thought

tomder55 · Apr 22, 2012, 06:26 PM

Oh wise one... why don't you tell me what is so hard to understand about "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech "

talaniman · Apr 22, 2012, 07:06 PM

Actually Tom, there are exceptions to your logic, set out here.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

NOTE, edited.

paraclete · Apr 22, 2012, 07:58 PM

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others

TUT317 · Apr 23, 2012, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Actually Tom, there are exceptions to your logic, set out here.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE, edited.

Yes, some people put themselves in a difficult position when they assert that a proposition is self-evidently true and choose to ignore the distinction between what has been asserted and the actual implications.

Freedom of various pursuits always has the potential to be limited to some extent, and this is evidenced by many court decisions restricting certain types of speeches.

Tut

talaniman · Apr 23, 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others

Actually a maranda asserts the rights of the accused by informing them that whatever they say can be used against them in a court of law. This is a right exclusively for those arrrested, and police, or authorities cannot compell self incrimination. It also asserts the right to have a lawyer, whether you can afford one or not.

It also says you can waive the right to silence, and to NOT have an attorney present.

NeedKarma · Apr 23, 2012, 06:10 AM

Argg... my web editing background is screaming at me. :-)

Here's the correct spelling: Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

speechlesstx · Apr 23, 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

Yes, some people put themselves in a difficult position when they assert that a proposition is self-evidently true and choose to ignore the distinction between what has been asserted and the actual implications.

Freedom of various pursuits always has the potential to be limited to some extent, and this is evidenced by many court decisions restricting certain types of speeches.

Tut

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

JudyKayTee · Apr 23, 2012, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

No law is sacrosanct Tom as your Supreme Court has so ably demonstrated yes your law says that and then it gives marander rights which say that before you allow a suspect the right of free speech you must warn that suspect against it, how does this not abridge the right of free speech or ar there some rights that are greater than others

I usually don't respond to people who can't spell what they are debating, but I'll make an exception.

Do you know the actual wording of Miranda rights is not controlled by the US Government? It's State by State. At any rate, I don't know a Police Officer who doesn't READ the rights, no matter how familiar he/she is with them, how many times he/she has said them. The warning is basically: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? If you are without the ability to retain an Attorney one will be appointed for you if and when you go to court.”

It's about self incrimination and nothing about free speech. I've seen "suspects" talk over the Police Officer reading these rights.

In my State the "suspect" has to VERBALLY agree that he/she understands these rights before questioning can continue and/or be admitted to Court. A nod or whatever does not count.

I don't understand the jump from free speech to Fifth Amendment Rights.

talaniman · Apr 23, 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

Whose stopping you from doing that?

NeedKarma · Apr 23, 2012, 07:08 AM

You know what's sad? That some people are more concerned with making sure corporations are allowed to anonymously throw heaps of money at the politicians while this goes on daily in your country: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medica...us-653584.html

Just a random thought. I know I'll get assaulted here for voicing it.

speechlesstx · Apr 23, 2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

Whose stopping you from doing that?

Tut mentioned "restricting certain types of speeches." You think corporations should be restricted, no?

speechlesstx · Apr 23, 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You know what's sad? That some people are more concerned with making sure corporations are allowed to anonymously throw heaps of money at the politicans while this goes on daily in your country: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medica...us-653584.html

Just a a random thought. I know I'll get assaulted here for voicing it.

You're entitled to your opinion. I have no idea what this has to do the subject but you have every right to distract from the subject at hand.

talaniman · Apr 23, 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tut mentioned "restricting certain types of speeches." You think corporations should be restricted, no?

In a fair and balanced way, HELL YES!! Just common sense to me, either all of us contribute to the welfare of all of us, through circulation of economics and social opportunity, or many will fail, and so will this nation.

I sound like fox news, FAIR, AND BALANCED. With me though it's a belief, with them its only a slogan.

What you think corporations should be unlimited and dictate what we do? They would make you a slave in a sweat shop for life. That's why they left America in the first place, cheap labor, lax laws, and no responsibility for workers or the environment.

Didn't know you believed in exploiting the weak and defenseless.