Restricting Violent Speech
 

I meant this title to read Restricting Violent Speech

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/13/op...iolent-speech/

Now it seems to me that, as the article says, restricting political speech to non violent imagery is something any free society would want to avoid, but Skybirds post in the Giffords thread lamenting our nearly unrestricted American rights in this area tells me that perhaps there is a valid argument to make for some degree of restriction. Opinions?

The left wants restriction on political speech now that they are in the minority in the House. Before the 2010 election were heard things like...I won, I make the agenda, etc.

Now that the tables have turned, it is about bi-partisainship, working together for the people ...etc.


Nothing happens through bi-partisainship.

But of course a person with a (D) next to their name wants to restrict our speech, But what the heck its for the greater good!

SARCASM<-spelt out for those who didn't get it.:x

sticks and stones...

If you take a look at countries with more restricted speech - or countries where it is totally forbidden - you won't see less (political) violence
If (hate) speech is only executed in dark cellars it is still the same. Especially in today's information age, it is no problem to access any kind of bull and propaganda - in this forum is a good example :O:

Typical politician trying to make a name for himself to justify staying in office to his constituents. The First Amendment is what really sets us apart form the rest of the world I believe. There is no need to pass legislation on something that already has a law in place. Enforcement is the answer, not more legislation. Also I agree wholly with both SCOTUS decisions mentioned in the article.

I would like to see -although I know it's really just wishful thinking- a bi-partisan effort at toning down rhetoric on both sides of the fence. Perhaps Rep. Brady would be so daring a man.:hmmm:

And the right is just as guilty of it.

I'd rather have a reasonable discussion instead of political posturing so why don't you go back to the Giffords thread and continue arguing with the other troll. :salute:

This isn't about "the left" wanting to do this now.... to be honest the "left" has been screaming for the "Fairness Doctrine" for years - which would abridge free speech rights as well. While I agree the "THEORY' is sound - who decides what constitutes "violent imagery"?

Slippery slope at its best and worst....

What we need is a government that is responsive to the people - thus the people have no taste for violent speak against those in government.....

Of the People, By the People, For the People - and thus PROTECTED by the PEOPLE.... Its the way its supposed to be.... And both sides have gotten us very far from that.....

But the other troll already posted with his political posturing.
Looky here.....
:yeah:

This is a terrible idea. It's a kneejerk reaction to a situation that didn't happen. It opens the door to more and more encroachment on free speech. Who gets to decide what's violent speech?

We've already seen what happens when you allow the government to abuse the idea of what's "terrorism" and what's not. Giving them the power to abuse what's "violent" and what's not just doesn't seem like a good idea. I think our existing laws against making threats and the like will suffice.

And furthermore, I think it's time that Neal had another troll housecleaning.

I agree and it brings up another point. Would "Keelhauling" be considered violent imagery?

If so I approve! :DL

There's no reason that anyone should even need to consider making a law restricting speech over this. Both sides should be able to use common sense to realize that making ridiculous statements doesn't help the debate at all. Even if this weekend's event was not triggered by either side's rhetoric, it's quite possible that in the future, it could.

That would have to be the courts, so really its the same as it is now and there is no need to change anything.

Even though I have not seen the wording of this legislation, it just sounds like a poorly thought out plan.

This type of legislation is not the solution.

I hope this bill dies in committee like the majority of bills.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No limits, period.

Sometimes we have to hear stuff we don't like. People need to get over it.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do the idiots in Washington have trouble understanding?

Agree. But how do we discourage them from continuing to try?