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

Seriously? Blogging isn't covered by the First Amendment? Who will decide what blogs are allowed, and which ones aren't allowed? These people are mad with power. Durbin is an idiot, but people will follow him. Just read the posts that follow here.

And now, the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=05-FJd6q390

Yssup's gonna love this one, lets see if his convictions hold true.

Those are the comments of the terminally stupid (stupid to the day they die) or the argument of the desperate. Wonder why we have a federal agency called the FAA since planes weren't invented then.

It's all ready happening. You can tell those cops hate their jobs.

Ironically, in the background of that video is the Holocaust Awareness Museum there in Philadelphia. I've spend time there, of course.


www.holocaustawarenessmuseum.o rg

I think somebody cut off Durbins statement.

Be that as it may, I don't really care for censorship if ANY fucking kind.

Those questions are legit, but you can't regulate stupid... Even here in the Shitbox. As evidenced by Whiny's rant this short FOX clip precipitated.

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.

Funny you should mention shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater. That phrase came from Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote the majority opinion in the 1917 Espionage Act. The Wilson White House made it against the law to criticize the war effort, then the military high command, and finally the White House itself. "Criticism" included arguing against the war or the draft, suggesting that the military was being mislead or the president was incompetent. Emma Goldman was deported, presidential candidate Eugene Debs was sentenced to 20 years, and a woman whose name escapes me was prosecuted for having the Kansas City Star publish her letter criticizing the draft board. In 1921 the case was revisited and this time Holmes wrote that the "Clear and Present Danger" had passed. Debs was released from prison and a great deal of the Act was overturned but not all. Nixon tried to use it against people leaking information about the Pentagon.

I object to the first thought from the poet. A certain amount of censorship is necessary and REGRETTABLE (not desirable) because someone has to decided what goes over the line and we have seen that this bunch in the WH can't be trusted because their ideas are so foreign to what we are used to.

Durbin wants to censor speech based solely on it's content. It is certainly permissible to shout "FIRE!" anywhere, especially if there is a fire. The problem is when your speech is solely intended to bring physical harm to someone else. That is why it is not OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. That is also why you can't advocate physically harming a public official.

But to censor bloggers just for advocating a political position in opposition to the government is tyranny.

Wait a second, asshole! Where in that video did Durbin say he supported censorship of ANY kind?

Is this going to be another of your lies-come-facts that you just pull out of your ass like a ripe dingleberry?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ed-165163.html

So we can be punished for "anti-muslim" speech by the federal government.

It's all ready happening. You can tell those cops hate their jobs.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Why is it when I see these young Policeman, all I can think about is the term "Jack Booted Thugs".

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ed-165163.html

So we can be punished for "anti-muslim" speech by the federal government. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I knew Oklahoma would make the list, if not top the list

the percentages are not even close, the are many many registared democrats that only vote for the GOP

I have found my nich in the pet treat business, selling buffalo bones. 100% natural and organic

btw if anybody likes ground buffalo that sells for $10-12#. There is a local guy
selling it for $5.50

Preposterous thread, Whiny.

Preposterous thread, Whiny. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Just 1 of 1810 preposterous threads that Hanoi James has started. But let's at least give him a little credit for starting this morning's Jean Stapleton RIP thread.

I will admit, that was a nice touch!