WHY ARE DEMOCRATS AFRAID OF FREE SPEECH AND THE 1ST AMMENDMENT ???

A post from Powerlineblog.com


A rally occurred on Capitol Hill in support of the Udall Bill to partially repeal the First Amendment. The Democrats’ proposal is sweeping: it would give Congress the power to limit spending and in-kind contributions in all federal elections. (For good measure, it would give state legislatures the power to do the same in state elections.) If the amendment were to pass, Congress could make it impossible to challenge incumbents by setting all spending limits at zero, or some other ridiculously low level. The proposal would also allow Congress to ban books or movies that it thinks might influence voters in the “wrong” direction, e.g., the latest film by Dinesh D’Souza. It is the most outrageous infringement of free speech that has been seriously proposed in the United States since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Yesterday’s rally was typical Democratic astroturf. There were more reporters present than “demonstrators.”


The ACLU has listed some of the implications of Franken’s anti-free speech amendment:

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal is the 28th Amendment:

• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;

• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a “climate change denier”;

• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;

• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;

• A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass and prosecute his own detractors;

• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents using state campaign finance restrictions; and

• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats).

Such examples are not only plausible, they are endless.

Why would a guy like Al Franken, who made a career out of speech of which many people disapproved, suddenly become an opponent of free speech? Because he is running for re-election. The Democrats are in trouble, and they know it. Their only hope is to try to suppress information about the lousy job the Obama administration, and Democrats in the Senate, are doing. If they can “get money out of politics,” then voters will have to rely on newspapers and the evening news for information. Naturally, the Udall amendment wouldn’t affect those Democrat-dominated news sources:

Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

Of course not: the press is solidly Democratic. They are only out to abridge the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans who want to participate in the political process.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ree-speech.php

Read about the bill and why the ACLU opposes the Udall Bill

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...tter_final.pdf

We do not want to give Congress any more power in this area. God Bless the ACLU!

Under the Udall Bill, the Democrats want to infringe on rights of ordinary citizens to participate in the political process, but keep in place their special interest "dark money" pipeline that feeds their own political power............be aware, be afraid of liberal Democrats!

At least we can spell "amendment" you douchebag.

What is an AMMENDMENT? Is that the way you spell it in ALL CAPS LAND?

Don't you get the little red squiggly lines under your words? Do you know what they mean?

Or are you deliberately ignoring them to further you reputation as ECCIE's biggest LIAR?

More on topic:

Franken’s anti-free speech amendment:

REALLY? REALLY???!!!!

So, if someone suggests that the way YOU and your LYING LEAGUE OF LIARS isn't right, then they're "ANTI" the fucking constitution? Do I hear that right? So if someone favors, let's say, cleanliness, then your spin is that person is ANTI-FREEDOM OF SANITATION?

REALLY? REALLY???!!!

OK, just checking.



DIPSHITTUS NON-ERECTUS.

At least we can spell "amendment" you douchebag. Originally Posted by timpage

I bet you can spell "a means to a end" also...

The fuckers might even suppress speech on a SHMB - then what would we all do?

The fuckers might even suppress speech on a SHMB - then what would we all do? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I don't know, you fradulent little gnome. Defect to a foreign country?

That's what a real man would do. Not just lie about it.

Your wife still kicking your wrinkly, dusty old ass around, Fraud Flintstone?

Riiight.

As long as it's non-liberal speech being suppressed, our resident Obamatons are ok with it. They don't understand that they are on the list, as well.

The questions is why and the answer is they do not follow the law anyway so it would only affect those that do.

As long as it's non-liberal speech being suppressed, our resident Obamatons are ok with it. They don't understand that they are on the list, as well. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

They are too stupid to understand much of what is going on in the world.

This whole speech thing is just like finance reform. Both sides want reform, as long as it doesn't affect their contributors.

In the end, when you start fucking around with the Constitution, the consequences will catch up with you. Political tides change.

The Constitution was deliberately made difficult to change so that it would not yield to the petty whims of the moment. From either side of the Political Isle.

WHY ARE DEMOCRATS AFRAID OF FREE SPEECH AND THE 1ST AMMENDMENT ??? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Is this another it's Obama's fault thread?

In the 1960s liberals were famous for saying that "I don't agree with you but I will support with my life your right to say it.". Today, as demonstrated by our own liberals, we no longer have liberals beliefs, we have fascists masquerading as liberals. That can be seen in the words and actions of Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Udall, Tampon, EVA, Timmie, and the rest.