Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: Can they deny the 1st Amendment right for hate speech felons?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default Can they deny the 1st Amendment right for hate speech felons?

    I asked because apparently they can deny felons the 2nd Amendment right.

    What provisions in the Constitution allow for that? Apparently the SCOTUS recognized them. So they can rule that felons can be denied the 1st Amendment right somewhat.

    It's the same with voting.

    I see nothing in the Constitution about felons.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,842 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    I asked because apparently they can deny felons the 2nd Amendment right.

    What provisions in the Constitution allow for that? Apparently the SCOTUS recognized them. So they can rule that felons can be denied the 1st Amendment right somewhat.

    It's the same with voting.

    I see nothing in the Constitution about felons.
    The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.

    Technically, there is no constitutional right to vote. The Constitution gives the states the power to determine voting qualifications.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.

    Technically, there is no constitutional right to vote. The Constitution gives the states the power to determine voting qualifications.
    What justifications? Explain. If there are justifications for denying the 2nd Amendment right, there are justifications for denying the 1st Amendment right as well.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    28,538
    Thanks
    1,651
    Thanked 7,407 Times in 6,016 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 315 Times in 303 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The Constitution is dead, our owners (Carlin) now do what ever they want to do, anyone who complains gets a beating.
    I intend to make it all the way through next year so that I may fully enjoy my 2022 NUDES IN NATURE calendar.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Hawkeye10 For This Post:

    AProudLefty (10-21-2021)

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    The Constitution is dead, our owners (Carlin) now do what ever they want to do, anyone who complains gets a beating.
    See even you can make sense.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,842 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    What justifications? Explain. If there are justifications for denying the 2nd Amendment right, there are justifications for denying the 1st Amendment right as well.
    There are several exceptions. You can prosecute threats, for example. Free speech largely applies to topics about public issues.

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There are several exceptions. You can prosecute threats, for example. Free speech largely applies to topics about public issues.
    There have been speeches that resulted in harm. Why are they not denied their right to free speech? They are free to continue their speeches on social media after they have served their time.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    For example, inciting to riot can be a felony. That's a 1st Amendment right. So why are they not denied that right after serving their times?
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,842 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    There have been speeches that resulted in harm. Why are they not denied their right to free speech? They are free to continue their speeches on social media after they have served their time.
    What harm?

    Free speech protects against government restrictions. Social media is a private entity and they can restrict whoever they choose.

    Hate speech is protected free speech and cannot be prohibited.

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    What harm?

    Free speech protects against government restrictions. Social media is a private entity and they can restrict whoever they choose.

    Hate speech is protected free speech and cannot be prohibited.
    Exactly. 2nd Amendment protects against government restrictions on owning and using guns.

    So what are the justifications for restricting that right? I do not see them.

    Tax evasion? No right to own guns to protect their families. Selling drugs? Same. Any of those felonies that do not involve any kind of weapons.

    So what justifications are there?
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    51,709
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.
    what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'????
    In a combat situation it is about 16 times better to do something useful and violent right away than to wait and figure out something even more useful and violent later.
    “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.”

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'????
    Thank you.

    I do not understand how the SCOTUS can justify this when the Constitution is clear.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,842 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Exactly. 2nd Amendment protects against government restrictions on owning and using guns.

    So what are the justifications for restricting that right? I do not see them.

    Tax evasion? No right to own guns to protect their families. Selling drugs? Same. Any of those felonies that do not involve any kind of weapons.

    So what justifications are there?

    Nikolas Cruz plead guilty today to killing 17 people in a school shooting. I think we might be careful about him carrying around a gun. Not all states prohibit felons from owning guns.

    Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license

    Of the states that do not require a person to have a permit or license to carry a handgun, we found three that allow felons to possess handguns after a certain amount of time has elapsed since their conviction or release from imprisonment and two that allow a person convicted of a felony to possess handguns if he has been pardoned.

    Vermont does not have any statutory requirements governing acquisition or possession of handguns by anyone, including felons

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    54,313
    Thanks
    18,317
    Thanked 11,802 Times in 9,631 Posts
    Groans
    676
    Groaned 1,632 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Nikolas Cruz plead guilty today to killing 17 people in a school shooting. I think we might be careful about him carrying around a gun. Not all states prohibit felons from owning guns.

    Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license

    Of the states that do not require a person to have a permit or license to carry a handgun, we found three that allow felons to possess handguns after a certain amount of time has elapsed since their conviction or release from imprisonment and two that allow a person convicted of a felony to possess handguns if he has been pardoned.

    Vermont does not have any statutory requirements governing acquisition or possession of handguns by anyone, including felons

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm
    He's in prison.
    Dachshund Lives Matter

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    What is sensical about limiting the means available for defense of self and country, when those with real criminal intent will ignore that law anyway, and where is the sense in surrendering the means of having last resort power over your government should it decide to ignore it's constitutional limits?

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,454
    Thanks
    608
    Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,842 Posts
    Groans
    209
    Groaned 122 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'????
    Shall not be infringed applies to your right to keep and bear arms. If I have a revolver that is an arm I keep and bear. Shall not be infringed does not say any type of arms.

    But, more seriously, I am going by state and federal laws that regulate firearms.

    Just as the Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, protection against search and seizure...the same reasonable restrictions apply to firearms.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    christiefan915 (10-21-2021)

Similar Threads

  1. Hate Crime & Hate Speech Ethics Were Invented By Socialists
    By Flanders in forum Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-29-2019, 10:15 AM
  2. Hate speech
    By Evmetro in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 06-20-2018, 05:57 AM
  3. The slippery slope Liberals walk: Actually, hate speech is protected speech
    By Truth Detector in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-20-2017, 01:39 PM
  4. Portland mayor - "Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment"
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-01-2017, 01:09 AM
  5. liberals hate first amendment
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 221
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 09:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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