These people are even more SICK than I realized.....🙄🙄
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (103)
sorted by:
All laws against the First Amendment, including these laws, were put into place in the past century. They did not exist for the first 150 years of our country. They were put into place by the Cabal (post 1913, like most such acts of fuckery) to justify censorship. No such laws have ever been made "un-illegal". Once in place, they remain, and government censorship only increases over time.
It seems reasonable that halting words that are intended to incite violence, or words that are threatening, should be restricted action. However, words are not deeds (except when they are, like actual mind control). There is no reason to restrict any speech. If someone commits an act of violence, then the action is illegal because it is an infringement on another person's Inalienable Rights. But the threat of violence (as words), can't possible harm someone.
For example, If someone is threatening violence towards me in words I will likely ignore them. I may walk away, or try to talk them down, whatever; situation dependent. Sometimes those words are accompanied by walking towards me, or making other threatening gestures. That is a completely different beast. In that case it is not the words that are the problem, but the physical threats. Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me. Therefore, words can't be an infringement of my Rights, no matter what those words are (excepting again, actual mind control, though that is usually accompanied by being tied in a chair and being drugged, i.e. physical actions).
With regards to the first exception to 1A in 1919(ish), where inciting a mob was made illegal; it seems so sensible. We don't want mobs.
Except sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing. This country was founded on exactly such speeches. In 1919 it was made illegal to make the exact same speeches that created our country. No fuckery there I'm sure.
Not that that is important, because its not the words that are the problem, but the action that comes next. Preventing speech is a Pre-Crime Division. There is no crime in any speech, because there can be no infringement of Rights in any speech. It is only the actions that may or may not come after the words where Rights infringement can occur.
Well said.
Also true - it's easy to talk big shit on the internet, especially when your voice is amplified (over social media).
Laws that restrict speech go back to the 17th century. Libel laws anyone?
This is a very good point, one I had not thought of. My research was into changes to the laws that were directed at the first amendment specifically, as determined by SCOTUS.
In the case of defamation it's a little different however, because defamation requires the person themselves to bring a suit against the defamer. The State can't charge a person with defamation, but the state can charge a person will "illegal speech" in these other instances.
Nevertheless, despite those differences, there are fundamental similarities. I will have to think on that more. I assert however, in a society with truly free speech, where a person could offer a rebuttal against defamation, that no harm can come to a person because of it. (This assumes that the defamation is an untrue or mischaracterized statement.)
It is only when we believe or trust a source of defamation (the media e.g.) that defamation can cause any harm at all. In other words, defamation can't be a rights infringement on its own; it requires The Matrix to support it. In such a case it would be The Matrix which was the crime (Rights infringement), not the defamation itself.
Excellent reply sir, I admire you for it. An example of a 17th century law against speech that the government could enforce would be the Sedition Act of 1798.
Due to the nature of crazy though, threatening someone directly is a pretty big no no and certainly if we had people doing our jobs your name would probably temporarily end up on a watch list to see if you make any moves towards doing it.
This is unfortunately because of the crazies who do this, and make law enforcement have to take these threats seriously or risk the loss of life. It's sad.
What is also sad is that a lot of these wouldn't fall under that, but would still be used for pity points e.g. by video game devs caught in a scandal.
I'd say we point and laugh first.
Ending up on a watch list is not the same as being arrested and charged with an illegal act. If someone threatens my life they are sus as fuck and they have my full attention. That doesn't mean they have done anything illegal. My discussion was about what was law; what was an infringement of Rights.
Threatening me is not a violation of my Rights and thus has no place in our laws. I can walk away at any time after someone threatens me. I can ignore it completely. I can do whatever I want, and no infringement has happened. Any law that would restrict their Right to threaten me is completely amoral, a violation of Natural Law AND Unconstitutional, even if it is "legal."
We have a metric fuckton of laws that violate all sorts of pieces of the Constitution. I'd argue that almost all of our Federal laws violate the Constitution, and are thus Unlawful, even if they are "legal."
This is the way.