Dick Durbin wonders if the 1st Amendment applies to bloggers. “Written over 200 years ago.”

Too bad people are so fixated on the literal interpretation of the constitution rather than the underlying principles.

Just like the 15, oy, 10 Commandments!

The underlying principles of the Constitution are explained best through the literal interpretation of the words, based on what the words meant at the time they were written. The Founders were playing a guessing game, or a word search. They wrote what they meant. The search for "hidden meaning" in the Constitution is what has destroyed it.

Come on, OldT. You're smarter than that.

Come on, OldT. You're smarter than that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's too damn bad that you're not!

A certain amount of censorship is necessary and even desirable; freedom of speech is not and should not be absolute. We restrict freedom of speech when we don't allow someone to shout FIRE in a crowded theater; when we don't allow adult materials to be sold to minors; when we enact 18 USC 871, which makes it a crime to threaten injury or death to the President or anyone on the Presidential succession. We put the clamps on freedom of speech when we allow for civil penalties in the cases of libel or slander, or when a judge orders a teenage girl wearing a T shirt with the words BITCH BITCH BITCH out of his courtroom, then cites her for contempt when she returns with a sweater over the T shirt that does not cover the shirt's message. We discourage certain forms of freedom of speech when theme parks such as Six Flags ban T shirts with messages such as I've Got a Big Johnson.
-
Many of us feel that reasonable, rational people should be able to agree on what type of speech should be allowed and what should not, but there is one major flaw in that theory. What I, as a fifty-plus white male, find to be reasonable and non-offensive will differ greatly from what a black male age 20 will think. That's not to say that I'm right and he's wrong, just that we are coming from different places, where different things are acceptable, funny, or offensive.
-
I guess the bottom line is that debate on this issue is healthy and helpful, so that we can try to come to a consensus. Originally Posted by Poet Laureate

Yet the goal of those who want to step up censorship is specifically to end debate. There is zero assurance that "reasonable, rational people" will always (or ever) be in charge, or that consensus of what constitutes "reasonable and rational" behavior could ever be reached.

I have to disagree, manipulation of information by censorship or any other means in the civilian society does far more harm than good. I think censorship is, however, underutilized in regard to the actions of the military during times of war.

The underlying principles of the Constitution are explained best through the literal interpretation of the words, based on what the words meant at the time they were written. The Founders were playing a guessing game, or a word search. They wrote what they meant. The search for "hidden meaning" in the Constitution is what has destroyed it.

Come on, OldT. You're smarter than that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

According to YOU?

Snick!