Posted on 12/28/2015 4:00:17 AM PST by Daffynition
>>I warned them. They would love it.
You warned us about the obvious. There’s an old saying that the freedom of the press only applies to people who own a printing press. The period where everyone owns a virtual press has gone from 1995 to now. Everyone knew that those who own presses (and transmitters) would want their control over the flow of information back.
Hey, don't burn your car with gasoline. That would be bad.
“.... some legal scholars are potheads, atheists, drunks, socialists, queers, have gambling problems or beat their wives, too.......
Being that odumbo is a supposed “Constitutional Scholar” we had better run that statement by him.
The Constitution exists precisely to prevent these kinds of rationalizations from suspending individual rights and curtailing freedom. The capacity of human beings to rationalize behavior is immense, and can be incredibly destructive - whether well-intentioned or not.
IMHO, it’s not freedom of speech that puts us at risk, but rather the lack of free speech. When we don’t openly discuss the reality that a significant percentage of self-identified followers of Islam are extremely violent and want to kill us, we ignore a ‘clear and present’ danger - and we let it percolate and grow. Political correctness is dangerous. It’s what prevents our freedom of speech from shining a light on and refuting the hateful speech and intent of others.
>>I’m good at warning people about the obvious.
>>Hey, don’t burn your car with gasoline. That would be bad.
LOL.
Typical FReeper response: you must be a communist. It’s my car and my gas. You don’t get to control me!
Weeee will determine what YOU get to reead.
YOU, of course, are too stupid!
That’s stupid, stupid, stupid, STUPID!!!!!!
You know Loretta Lynch would never prosecute Obama or Valerie Jarrett, right?...
Notice that the “concern” over recruitment ends at the door of the forward operating bases (mosques) in the West.
They NEVER mention the activism in the Trojan Horses in their neighborhoods. No no...it's the INTERNET that's the problem.
And our lame media and political leadership at all levels laps this garbage up via talking points and spews it out as Gospel.
Amazing.
One of the reasons the Progressive Left is aligned with the terrorists and Jihadi is because they provide threats and manufacture a series of crisis that provide a pretext for the Left to impose it’s agenda.
On major part of the Left’s agenda is to shut down and criminalize ideas and speech in opposition to it’s agenda . That’s the whole goal of the Political Correctness movement. Here we see the NY Times using ISIS internet propaganda as a pretext to regulate the First Amendment rights of the American people, which is totally unnecessary.
In the past we have put in place specific and targeted Anti Sedition laws that target enemy propaganda and seditious behavior to accomplish what the NY Times is proposing without affecting the First Amendment rights of the American people on other topics.
A narrowly written anti sedition law with a suitable sunset period narrowly targeting Islamic Jihadi radical and declaring ISIS/Islamic proselytizing and recruiting for Jihad seditious and illegal is all that is needed.
The NY Times is bitterly opposed to such an action because it only targets Islamic Radicals without impacting the honest, hard working members of American society that play by the rules and are no threat to national security.
What the NY Times wants are laws that severely limit and regulate the First Amendment rights (regulated by the Progressive Left , of course) of the American people that will restrict, inhibit and intimidate Americans free speech and have the maximal negative impact on our freedoms and create maximal disruption in the lives of ordinary American while having minimal impact on the actions Radical Islamic who are proselytizing Islamic supremacy, instituting Sharia Law and calling all devout Muslims to do their sacred duty to serve Allah by waging violent Jihad upon the non believers
You’re right. It’s not the internet. Mosques are the recruiting stations for terrorists. If the “government” wants to cut down on recruiting terrorists, they need to shut down the mosques.
The First Amendment is as clear as the Second Amendment. Leftists celebrate trampling both, but the words are clear, and the rights come from God, not just from the “supreme law of the land”. Stop ISIS, but not by violating fundamental rights.
“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.”
The NY Slimes is reason why we need a fairness doctrine.
We are at war with islamists.
If we had a president determined to protect our country, the CIA, NSA, ... would be actively attacking islamists & their sympathizers through spying, sabotage, hacking, viruses, & drone bombs.
If I was head of the CIA, no islamist would advocate terror over the Net for long before their computer/phone shows the blue screen of death. It is ridiculous that the advanced technology of the West cannot or will not make the Net unusable by terrorists, nor identify, locate, & neutralize
terrorists on the Net.
If these activities are illegal then let’s make them legal, to use against known & suspected terrorists & their sympathizers, whether domestic or foreign; & forget about taking away American’s rights.
As for Americans who support jihad, our treason & sedition laws should be enforced vigorously.
Constitution already provides protections against such speech. It forbids advocating the violent overthrow of the government. The government only needs to enforce it.
Hell, NO!!! Remove the New York Times and I lose the TagLine I’m so proud of. Every time they confirm my accuracy I deposit a (symbolic) Dollar into a non-existing bank account. I’m rich...RICH I tell you.
Islam is pure evil and is easily fought by any decent person who does not believe in rape, slavery and murder. If you can not fight that movement then you are part of the problem, speech is not.
Democrats and their need to control speech is the problem.
Because your speech is next!
Nazi propaganda wasn’t published and distributed here in America during WWII. Its a bizarre interpretation on the first amendment to say it protect the rights of foreign enemies, in wartime, to spread propaganda, recruit, and communicate.
In Desert Storm, we bombed a radio station that broadcast a Tokyo Rose type program. I guess today we would leave it up so their free speech would be protected.
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.