Posted on 12/28/2015 4:00:17 AM PST by Daffynition
It is one of the most hallowed precepts in modern constitutional law: Freedom of speech may not be curbed unless it poses a *clear and present danger* ~ an actual, imminent threat, not the mere advocacy of harmful acts or ideas. But in response to the Islamic State*s success in grooming jihadists over the Internet, some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider that constitutional line.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The best thing about the First Amendment is that it makes it easier to sort people out. Restrict it through law or political correctness and it’s harder to figure out who the idiots and terrorists are!
The first institution that should go should be the New York Times. Maybe it would clean up the crapola in all of the slants and spins to form opinions in people.
“some legal scholars”?
Love that, vague, un-named, un-counted un-attributed source of all the hoop-la.
That “Old Gray Lady” is actually in worse shape that Norman’s mother.
Liberals belong in cages. All liberals.
The correct solution is to kill every terrorist you find. Thus you end the problem and leave 1A untouched. Of course their whole point is to destroy 1A and use terrorists to do it.
Any one left or right who doesn’t put the constitution first is a progressive just as surely as Woodrow Wilson was.
>> some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider that constitutional line.
It’s never out of bounds to ask such a question.
However the answer is still a resounding HAIL NO!!!!
Sedition and treason are not protected speech.
Neither are death threats, libel, or a whole slew of things.
You can’t even cause a panic by yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater.
Free speech is right and good for citizens but why should we allow terrorists and others to send their garbage to us? Shut down anything that can be associated with these countries and groups. If an American is propagandizing for the enemy, then prosecute them.
The State Department got the 'blasphemous film' that Hillary blamed Benghazi on removed from youtube.
Michele Malkin has repeatedly had her 'offensive' videos removed from youtube.
Censorship is already here and the videos that are being banned are not the ones radicalizing terrorists.
Liberals just want more laws that give them advantage. Currently we have every means at our disposal and plenty of constitutionally valid laws to deal with ISIS and any other terror group’s activities. The left will not allow their use so that they can erode constitutional rights with ‘new’ laws and erode the constitution itself.
I’ll wager some legal scholars are potheads, atheists, drunks, socialists, queers, have gambling problems or beat their wives, too. I’ll give them zero credence as well.
NYT is enemedia. Period.
Then we can easily figure out who the tyrants are. Really, ISIS wouldn’t be much of a threat to us without the tyrants. They probably wouldn’t exist at all.
At that point, you are 'in contact' with agents of the enemy, conspiring to commit acts of terrorism.
But nevermind that, some liberals WANT to see the war come to our shores.
It is always the “thing” or the “other” that liberals place blame on, not the individual bum, moocher, criminal or evil-doer.
They blame society, the neighborhood, the schools or the economy for people turning to crime.
They blame capitalism because some people are just too lazy to work hard to advance themselves.
They blame white people because many black people aren’t interested in becoming educated or working hard or behaving in a civil manner.
They blame guns when evil people abuse one to harm others.
They blame the Second Amendment for making the guns available.
Now they blame the First Amendment because evil muslims use speech to lure other evil or stupid people into fighting for ISIS.
Maybe it is liberals who need a tune up, not the First and Second amendments, the US Constitution, or the entire US culture and economic system.
I warned everyone.
When the ‘news media’ in America would vow to destroy the Second Amendment, people would scream, “Oh yeah? Well, how would you like it if we overturned the FIRST Amendment?”
I warned them. They would love it.
So long as they control who gets to speak, the ‘news media’ in America would love nothing better than to destroy the First Amendment.
The ‘news media’ is more of an enemy than ISIS.
All of the excuses that liberals are willing to make for muslim terrorists and those who support them.
Has any klasman been called a 'naive' person curious about the group, not a 'sophisticated terrorist'?
More cover for the 'lone wolves' who attack in this country but aren't 'real' terrorists (such as the murderer at Fort Hood who'd been in contact with Al Qaeda and our government even knew it but let it slide because muslims are protected in their hate).
The solution is not to take away our freedoms. The solution is to, globally, have culture, values, and governments which promote civilized behavior and expectations.
One reason why liberal newspeople (they are not journalists in any objective sense anymore) opposed wiretapping stateside calls with known terrorists is members of the media were in direct connection with Al Qaeda and did not turn over evidence to our government.
At least one worked for Time, I don’t recall the others at this moment. Wouldn’t surprise me that they are also members of some of these online forums ‘strictly to gather notes, y’see’.
There was a youtube video from a longer discussion where Peter Jennings and another journalist are discussing objectivity in reporting and the situation is discussed, ‘if you know in advance about an attack on our troops, do you disclose this information to them so it can be avoided’ and their conclusion is ‘no’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.