Obama has the absolute worst record when it comes to the rights of actual journalists
seeing the left freak out that we want paid bloggers to report cracks me up. Are you being paid?
It seems one FL senator has lost his mind
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
Obama has the absolute worst record when it comes to the rights of actual journalists
seeing the left freak out that we want paid bloggers to report cracks me up. Are you being paid?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right, the fact that you see no issue with someone having to register with government, to post their thoughts online, tells me there is no true discussion to be had here. We are in different worlds as far as our view on rights are concerned.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
No, "you" aren't asking. You're using the power of government to force it. Why not suggest/require every paid blogger to register? Why is it only those who blog about government employees!?
Yakuda
Verified User
So you're pissy with me because I use your argument against you? This is why leftists are intellectual midgets. If you retards could think instead of react there may be the possibility of discussion but as it is you cant think.
Do not suppose that any MAGA right winger here will be sane enough to see the problem with this kind of legislation. Most of them would not have been able to see the problem with the kinds of things done by Adolf Hitler; Joseph Stalin; Pol Pot; or Idi Amin.
They are scum...and proud of it.
They are scum...and proud of it.
I guess everyone that owns a gun can be required to register with the state since you think registration is required to have a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
Yakuda
Verified User
I don't think registration should be "required" but thats what leftists want for gun ownership but they don't seem so hard up for it with free speech or other "rights" especially abortion which they think is a right. So the last thing anyone needs to hear is a leftist whining about what the governor here is doing since they don't seem to mind it for other rights.
Yakuda
Verified User
Can any idiot see it? Let's find out what you see.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
All our Florida members would have to register just to post or blog here.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Pissy? Not at all. If you don't see an inherent issue with having to register with the government, in order to exercise free speech rights, there's no possible way we are going to find any common ground on this specific topic.
There is some question as to whether registration of firearms might be constitutional. I'd argue that this is a completely different case. Registration of firearms, while it might be considered an infringement, would also serve the public interest. There is no public interest served by this, or certainly no public interest that outweighs the obvious infringement.
The point is moot, the law will never pass, so it will never be tested, but it's ludicrous to argue that the public needs to know who is being paid to blog. Speech, whether you are paid for it or not, is protected by the first amendment. This is simply an attempt to to stifle any speech that is critical of a public official. It's nonsense, it's unenforceable, and it's unconstitutional. An absurd overreach by DeSantis and his gang of goons.
Yakuda
Verified User
You either didn't read what I wrote or don't understand it. I dont give a shit which it is because it still brings us to where we are right here. I asked you if the right to free speech was sacrosanct. You STILL haven't answered.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Obviously it's not sacrosanct.... but you already knew that. We have libel and slander laws.
Yakuda
Verified User
Then what are you whining about? All rights have restrictions. Some people believe speech is "dangerous" because it hurts their feelings and therefore needs to be silenced. There are numerous examples of parents having the fucking audacity to talk back to school boards.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right... like I said, there's virtually no chance of finding common ground here, especially if your beliefs seem to be "Well, if we have some limitations on rights, then all limitations are acceptable because we already have limitations".
Yakuda
Verified User
Ok then make your case for which rights can be more restricted than others and why. You understand what precedence means right?
ZenMode
Well-known member
That's not how rights work. "I" don't have to make a case for why rights shouldn't be restricted. "You", if you want to implement a restriction/limitation/requirement, have to justify why it's necessary and constitutional.
Yep. And that restriction must have a public purpose that outweighs the infringement. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater because your right to do so is outweighed by public harm you would do, Same with hate speech. In this case, there is little or no public interest in the proposal. This is nuance that Yakker is incapable of. He's just not smart enough.