• About
    • Who am I? What am I doing here? How did I get here? (updated 10/29/2013)
  • Contact Form
  • FAIR USE NOTICE

PUMABydesign001's Blog

~ “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

Tag Archives: Freedom of Speech

Forum: Are There Limits On Free Speech? Should There be?

08 Monday May 2017

Posted by bydesign001 in Forum Responses, Wow! Magazine

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

First Amendment, Freedom of Speech



Every week on Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question : Are There Limits On Free Speech? Should There be?

Michael McDaniel: There are, of course, limits on free speech, the classic “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” being the most obvious example. Theoretically, obscenity may be criminalized, though in practice, it seldom is. After all, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously noted in an obscenity case (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964) he couldn’t describe it, but he knew it when he saw it. The Supreme Court has also decided exotic dancing, because it is a form of artistic expression, deserves the protection of the First Amendment. Apparently they’ve seen it, and that wasn’t it.

Therein lies much of the difficulty in proscribing speech. For any law to be constitutional, the reasonable man must be able to read it, and understand what is and is not unlawful. If one cannot gaze upon a given nude body, or a given sexual act without confusion about whether it is obscene, and therefore unlawful, or merely an expression of free speech, life becomes even more confusing than ever.

Clearly child pornography is beyond the pale, yet before the advent of digital photography, parents sending negatives of their children playing in a bathtub to the developer sometimes found themselves accused of child porn. Now, one must worry about the intrusion of cyber cops into their electronic devices. Will they think similar digital photos evidence of child porn? Will they seize my computers, throw me in prison, force me to deplete my bank accounts and retirement to defend myself against unwarranted and false charges?

I do not defend, for a moment, what is clearly the sexual exploitation of children. I merely point out the difficulty in applying a single, often politicized, standard to that which is hardly black and white.

Political speech deserves the greatest protection under the Constitution, yet it is precisely that which Democrats–and some Republicans–wish to restrict. They wanted to make criticizing Hillary Clinton unlawful. They wished to make criticizing any politician during election season a crime. Many still wish it.

And one cannot forget Academia, where the idea that unpopular speakers may not only be preemptively shut up, if they dare try to exercise their First Amendment rights, they may be–must be–physically attacked. This is not only the stance of lunatic special snowflakes, but the spineless administrators, and state politicians that aid and abet such insanity. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me,” is an axiom lost on such people, who believe the mere existence of words with which they disagree harmful, and they’ll be delighted to use the sticks and stones on anyone they don’t like.

The First Amendment like the Second, is the backbone of our society. Both establish and uphold the rule of law, where everyone can reasonably understand the limits of discourse and behavior. But civilization is a matter of informed consent and willing participation. Those seeking to limit the First Amendment, if they move beyond mere words, force us toward the exercise of the Second.

Any limitation on fundamental rights must be narrowly drawn and so simple as to be understood by the proverbial reasonable man. The antidote for “bad” speech, is good speech, and plenty of it. To do otherwise is to abandon civilized persuasion and reason in favor of brute force.

That’s precisely what the many–and growing in number–enemies of liberty, of America and Americans, seek. Many of them are too stupid, too unschooled in history and human nature, to understand the danger of the precipice to which they push us. Their leaders, however, understand precisely what they’re doing. They may well force us to abandon words, and rely instead on the Second Amendment. The pen is mightier than the sword only in a society wherein liberty and civilized discourse–free speech–reign. God help us all when that is no longer true in America.

Fausta Rodriquez Wertz: No limits.

Don Surber: Answer: No.

Rob Miller: I have to honestly confess myself perplexed on this one. In the America I grew up in, what was considered free speech was pretty well defined and the standard was relatively universal, based on the old Supreme Court ‘fire in a crowded theater’ definition.Neither is true anymore and in my opinion it is mostly the Left that has deliberately bastardized the concept.

What we have now is a situation where what constitutes free speech basically depends on whose talking and where. If you’re on most of America’s campuses, speech that is openly racist, disparages males, talks about assassinating the president or in some cases borderline incites violence against ‘Republicans’ or other select groups is considered free speech, while having someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray et al speak by invitation on a college campus is not considered free speech at all, but something to be suppressed by any means necessary.

The same thing occurs almost daily in our public media and discourse. Someone like Bill Maher can gleefully accuse the president of the United States of incest with his own daughter, or a Stephen Corbet can lunch an obscene hateful rant from the safety of the CBS studios. Someone like Hasan Minhaj can attack the president viciously far beyond any pretense of a roast and call Steve Bannon a Nazi and it passes for protected speech and ‘comedy.’ Mention that Minhaj avidly supports Islamist Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) is apparently ‘racist’ beyond the pale and in need of suppression, at least according to the Left. And in fact, the Left does it’s very best to suppress any realistic discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist fascism on the channels of communication it controls.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words,’ those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”

In that case, the fighting words were ‘fascist’ and ‘racketeer.’ What would happen if Steve Bannon (who is definitely not a Nazi) were to sue Minhaj for libel? Based on our current libel laws, it’s an open question. What if Bannon were to confront Minhaj and demand a public apology and when he didn’t receive one, knock Mihaj to the pavement? Again, an open question. And in Bannon’s case, the position he holds in the Trump Administration pretty much precludes himfrom taking any action at all, something Minhaj in certainly aware of.

The First Amendment obviously only applies to certain people. And I don’t think that’s what our Founders intended.

I’m not really sure how we fix this. We could loosen up and redefine the libel laws, but we run the risk of the cure being worse than the disease, as much as I’d like to see certain people get the pants sued off them. or we could wait for a case to amble its way to the Supreme Court (assuming they even agree to hear it) and hope for new guidelines that enforce the same tolerance on everyone. But given that there are now plenty of people wearing judicial robes out there whom are perfectly happy with the abuse of our First Amendment (including on our Supreme Court) depending on the politics and who the plaintiff is, that’s essentially a coin toss.

Doug Hagin: Outside of libel? No.

Laura Rambeau Lee :Over the past several decades we have seen our First Amendment right to free speech become more restricted through a progressive campaign of political correctness. The left has deemed certain words and expressing certain beliefs as “offensive” and those who speak the truth are often attacked verbally and called racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. Progressives know very well how destructive these labels can be and use them effectively to silence their opposition.

Today we are seeing the Antifa movement seeking to curtail the free speech of those with whom they disagree. These self-labeled anti-fascists are actually anti-First Amendment groups who are growing more violent and disruptive across the country. Their only purpose is to create chaos and widen the chasm of divisiveness the left has created in our country. Incitement to violence is not free speech, just as rioting and destroying private property or blocking traffic and businesses cannot be considered peaceably assembling or justifiably expressing grievances.

Speech itself should remain unlimited except for the common sense “don’t yell fire in a crowded theater” type of speech. While we may disagree with what someone says or even find it offensive, we must respect a person’s right to say it. But as with so many of our inherent rights we have to accept responsibility for our words and actions. Violent protesters and those who destroy property must be held accountable and punished for these crimes. This cannot be permitted and protected as free speech. The rule of law must be upheld and applied equally to all individuals.

The left must understand what free speech truly is and what it means to speak freely in a free society. We cannot allow them to dictate what viewpoints can or cannot be expressed. Tolerance goes both ways. Individuals in our society must be able to speak freely without fear of personal attack or injury by those who disagree with them. It is up to our elected officials and our law enforcement officers to assure that all of our rights are protected.

Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Donald Trump and the Heckler’s Veto

18 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by bydesign001 in Election 2016

≈ Comments Off on Donald Trump and the Heckler’s Veto

Tags

Arthur Terminiello, Donald Trump, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, the heckler's veto


“…protest of political speech is itself protected speech, but protest cannot be so forceful or dominant that it vetoes the speaker….”

Reason.com by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Catholic Priest Arthur TerminielloOn Feb. 7, 1946, Arthur Terminiello, a Roman Catholic priest who was a fierce opponent of communism and believed that President Harry Truman was too comfortable with it, gave an incendiary speech in a Chicago hall that his sponsors had rented.

The hall held about 800 people, but nearly 2,400 showed up. Father Terminiello’s opponents outnumbered his supporters by a two-to-one ratio. The atmosphere in the hall was electric, with almost everyone present taking sides for or against this priest, all under the watchful eyes of Chicago police.

The speech delighted the priest’s supporters and enraged his detractors. When it became apparent that violence might break out, the Chicago police approached Terminiello while he was speaking and asked him to stop and leave the building.

He refused to leave and resumed his speech. The police prediction soon came to pass. The fiery priest ignited the hatred of his adversaries, many of whom seemed to have come to that venue to silence him.

The police safely escorted Terminiello out of the hall and then, in the presence of the many rioters who by now had spilled out onto a public street, arrested him for inciting a riot. The charge was defined in Illinois in the mid-1940s so as to criminalize any behavior that intentionally arouses the public to anger or brings about public unrest.

The police did not arrest any of the rioters who smashed windows, destroyed the stage and assaulted the priest. They saw him arrested for his words that they hated.

Terminiello was tried and convicted. After his conviction had been upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction. In so doing, the high court saved the First Amendment from authoritarian impulses that sought to narrow its scope, and ushered in the modern judicial understanding that has informed the present-day parameters of the freedom of speech….

Continue

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Gay Rights Activist: Christians Shouldn’t Be Forced To Bake Pro-Gay Cakes

02 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by bydesign001 in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Freedom of Speech, gay-marriage, religious-freedom, UK


 

gay wedding cake

 

The Libertarian Republic by Casey Harper

A gay rights activist announced he has swapped sides on the same-sex wedding services debate, saying he supports same-sex marriage but doesn’t believe Christians should be forced to write messages they disagree with.

Peter Tatchell’s article centers around Ashers Bakery, a United Kingdom bakery whose owner refused to make a cake with a pro-gay message. A judge ruled last year the Belfast bakery had discriminated and fined it. The case is scheduled to go before the appellate court this week.

While admitting “It pains me to say this,” Tatchell writes in an editorial in The Guardian that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands[…]

Continue Reading — Gay Rights Activist: Christians Shouldn’t Be Forced To Bake Pro-Gay Cakes

How nice to wake up after the damage is done.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

BREAKING: Obama Launches Executive Order To DESTROY The First Amendment

22 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by bydesign001 in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

“dark money” executive order, Barack Obama, executive actions, Freedom of Speech, Tyranny alert


 

BE FUNKY barack obama signing legislation screenshot TYRANNY ALERT

 

Tell Me Now by Andrew Spalding

Earlier this month, Obama announced an executive action that was aimed at destroying the Second Amendment. Now, disturbing new reports have revealed that the president is preparing yet another executive order, and this time he’s coming for the first amendment.

The New York Times reported that Obama is drawing up a new executive action designed to execute an end-run around Congress: a requirement for companies that do business of any kind with the government to disclose their “contributions to groups that spend money to influence campaigns.”

Though the action would not prohibit these corporations from getting government business, it suggests that donating to the “wrong” party might cause the corporations to LOSE government business […]

Continue Reading — BREAKING: Obama Launches Executive Order To DESTROY The First Amendment

Pot calling the kettle black, it will never be that dark with Progressives from Obama from down being the exception to the rule, of course (reality with a bit of sarcasm).

If Obama were truly concerned about “dark money” and no so dirty himself, he would have started with looking in the mirror and at the corporations with whom he himself is bedded down.

 

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Onlinecensorship.org Tracks Content Takedowns by Facebook, Twitter, and Other Social Media Sites

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by bydesign001 in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Censorship, Freedom of Speech, Internet


online censorship

 

EFF.org

San Francisco – The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Visualizing Impact launched Onlinecensorship.org today, a new platform to document the who, what, and why of content takedowns on social media sites. The project, made possible by a 2014 Knight News Challenge award, will address how social media sites moderate user-generated content and how free expression is affected across the globe.

Controversies over content takedowns seem to bubble up every few weeks, with users complaining about censorship of political speech, nudity, LGBT content, and many other subjects. The passionate debate about these takedowns reveals a larger issue: social media sites have an enormous impact on the public sphere, but are ultimately privately owned companies. Each corporation has their own rules and systems of governance that control users’ content, while providing little transparency about how these decisions are made.

At Onlinecensorship.org, users themselves can report on content takedowns from Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr, and YouTube. By cataloging and analyzing aggregated cases of social media censorship, Onlinecensorship.org seeks to unveil trends in content removals, provide insight into the types of content being taken down, and learn how these takedowns impact different communities of users.

“We want to know how social media companies enforce their terms of service. The data we collect will allow us to raise public awareness about the ways these companies are regulating speech,” said EFF Director for International Freedom of Expression and co-founder of Onlinecensorship.org Jillian C. York[…]

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Saudi Blogger Receives 1000 Lashes, 10 Yrs Imprisonment (UPDATED)

19 Monday Jan 2015

Posted by bydesign001 in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

apostasy, Freedom of press, Freedom of Speech, humanitarian violations, Islam, Raif Badawi, Saudi Arabia


UPDATE:

Ensaf Haider, wife of blogger Raif Badawi (image below) sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashings, 50 lashes to be delivered every Friday until complete has informed the media that her husband’s case has been referred to the Supreme Court by the king’s office.

BBC

…the referral, made before he was flogged 50 times last Friday, gave him hope that officials would end his punishment.

A second round of lashings was postponed for medical reasons….

In 2012, he was arrested in Jeddah and charged with ‘insulting Islam through electronic channels” and “going beyond the realm of obedience’.

In 2013 he was cleared of apostasy, which could have carried a death sentence…

Amnesty International said officials had delayed the second round of flogging because Badawi’s wounds had not yet healed….

Read full article

 

ORIGINAL POST:

BeFunky_null_1 Saudi Blogger Raif Badawi

 

Independent.co.uk

Raif Badawi, the Saudi blogger, was due to receive the second set of 50 lashes today for insulting Islam, but it has been postponed on medical grounds….

Read full article

Badawi’s only sin was freedom of speech and press after creating “a liberal, secular website, Free Saudi Liberals.” He has been sentenced to10 years in prison and 1000 lashes to be doled out every Friday until completed.

According to Human Rights Watch, Badawi received his first set of lashings on January 9, 2015, on a public street in front of a mosque in Jeddah. Calls to pardon Badawi have been ignored to date.

Saudi authorities lashed Raif Badawi 50 times part of a judicial sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for setting up a liberal website and allegedly insulting religious authorities.
The charges against Badawi are based solely on his peaceful exercise of his right to free expression, Human Rights Watch said. Badawi established his online platform in 2008 to encourage debate on religious and political matters in Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities have detained Badawi in Jeddah’s Buraiman prison since his arrest on June 17, 2012.

‘Corporal punishment is nothing new in Saudi Arabia, but publicly lashing a peaceful activist merely for expressing his ideas sends an ugly message of intolerance,’ said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. ‘Saudi Arabia is showing a willingness to inflict vicious and cruel punishments on writers whose views it rejects….’
Read full report

Permission to reprint granted by, Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia: Free Blogger Publicly Flogged: More Lashes Pending for Creating Liberal Website, Insulting Religious Authorities”, Author, Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director. Creative Commons License.

Saudia Arabia’s history of humanitarian violations:

 

LINKS:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html
http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/10/saudi-arabia-free-blogger-publicly-flogged
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30856403

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Gab.ai
  • MeWe
  • Tea Party Community
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Pocket
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • scoop.it
  • Telegram
  • WhatsApp
  • More
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Blog Stats

  • 2,627,305 hits

Google Translate

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,261 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

2016 Cry and Howl Conservative Blog Award

NRA Member

Ammo.com

Veterans’ Tales – A Forum for Veterans & Family Members of Vets

RSS Veterans’ Tales

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Wow!

WowMagazine

RSS Wow! Magazine — Recent Posts

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Blogroll

  • 1389 Blog – Counterjihad!
  • Bare Naked Islam
  • Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead
  • Boudica BPI Weblog
  • Cry and Howl
  • Fix Bayonets!
  • FREE NORTH CAROLINA
  • GRUMPY OPINIONS
  • Ike Jakson’s Blog
  • Legal Insurrection
  • LUPUS AND CHRONIC ILLNESS
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Old West Tales (Thoughts from Afar)
  • Pacific Paratrooper
  • PAJAMAS MEDIA
  • Political Clown Parade
  • Publius-Huldah’s Blog
  • Rifleman III Journal
  • The Acceptable Digest
  • The Christian Gazette
  • The Daily Rant
  • The Last Tradition
  • The Mad Jewess
  • The Religion of Peace

Ephesians 6:13

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.

Minds.com

Gab.ai – #SpeakFreely – Join Me

@PUMABydesign

Grumpy Opinions Conservative News and Opinions 2016

Grumpy Opinions Conservative News and Opinions 2016

Tweets

My Tweets

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work by PUMABydesign001's Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://pumabydesign001.com/fair-use-notice/.

CREEPING SHARIA

SAY NO TO ONLINE CENSORSHIP

RSS Front Page Magazine

  • Muslim UK Soldier Conspired With Terrorists
  • 7 Killed in Muslim Terror Attack on Jerusalem Synagogue
  • Charging Black Officers in Black Man’s Death is Racist
  • 2 Years After Early Release, ‘American Taliban’ Was Meeting With ISIS Recruiter
  • Trump’s Facebook Ban Means Elections Take Place by UN Speech Rules
©2017 PUMABydesign001’s Blog.

RSS Lifezette

  • The Ghouls At Pfizer Don’t Know When To Stop
  • Warning not Acknowledged: Six-Year-Old Shooting Teacher Could Have Been Prevented
  • Is There Hope For Justice in America? Two J6 Verdicts Today
  • Naysayers Owe The Freedom Caucus An Apology!
  • Ivan Provorov Didn’t Do Anything Wrong And Neither Did Pink Floyd!!! – Press For Truth [VIDEO]

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

  • Follow Following
    • PUMABydesign001's Blog
    • Join 474 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PUMABydesign001's Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: