18 replies to this topic

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Can this be interpreted as an attack on the First Amendment?

https://petitions.wh...videos/WkKmcGnG

We petition the Obama administration to:

Ban Sandy Hook Hoax websites, channels, and videos.

We urge you to make it an illegal act to use the internet to create, promote, or profit from any content that suggests that the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy was a hoax. This includes any content that suggests that the victims or their families were actors and/or that they are not actually deceased. This was a horrible tragedy. Numerous innocent lives were lost and countless more were forever changed. The survivors have to deal with unimaginable pain and suffering and they should not have to be subjected to such hurtful and harmful accusations, especially on their own memorial pages for their lost loved ones because these bullies are protected by their "Freedom of Speech". These people should be treated and tried as criminals. That is the least we can do to honor these victims.

Of course Sandy Hook was horrendous crime. But should we even consider restrictions to our First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech "to honor these victims"?

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 16 January 2013 - 02:04 AM.

[Hasina]

http://en.wikipedia....eech_exceptions

http://en.wikipedia....tements_of_fact

Edited by Hasina, 16 January 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

hmm ... part of me says "yes", but then I live in a country that already has conditions upon what is valid public speech so I'm used to the idea of someone saying "you may think that, but shut the **** up about it in public".

Edited by Wearer of Hats, 16 January 2013 - 02:11 AM.

[Simbi Laveau]

Yeah ,it would.
That would be  a lot of illegal sites ,and the fact *anyone* is trying to do this REEKS of the lady doth protest too much .
Why get so upset ,if anyone saying this just looks like a crackpot to the alleged red white and true bluers ?
Also,the fact the cops said,NOT A HOAX ,is along the same lines .
Sounds like they don't want it to gain too much momentum .
Ooohhh weeellll ......

[Likely Guy]

Hurtful lies and half-truths can spread like wildfire. Unfortunately, the truth takes her own sweet time.

Then again, I have no respect for the media. That is, today's 'internet' media of bloggers, special interest forums and you-tube posters.

It's like they're standing up in a crowded movie theatre and yelling "FIRE!" when there is none, all the while claiming the 1st Ammendment.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

Hasina, on 16 January 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....eech_exceptions

http://en.wikipedia....tements_of_fact

As your links point out there are already certain restrictions in place to the First Amendment, and if these Hoax sites meet the criteria of the current law then there should be no need for further restrictions and penalties. This call for more regulation is an alarmist reaction that can only lead to further erosion of our rights.

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 16 January 2013 - 02:33 AM.

[Hilander]

I would have to say no, let them say what they want and if they are spreading lies then sue them.

[acidhead]

While they're at it the authors of this petition need to know that fiction novels have existed for as long as non-fiction novels.

Good luck getting your way with cherry picking what is freedom of speech and what is not.

BTW, the Holocaust was a hoax.

lol

[FurthurBB]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 16 January 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Can this be interpreted as an attack on the First Amendment?

https://petitions.wh...videos/WkKmcGnG

We petition the Obama administration to:

Ban Sandy Hook Hoax websites, channels, and videos.

We urge you to make it an illegal act to use the internet to create, promote, or profit from any content that suggests that the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy was a hoax. This includes any content that suggests that the victims or their families were actors and/or that they are not actually deceased. This was a horrible tragedy. Numerous innocent lives were lost and countless more were forever changed. The survivors have to deal with unimaginable pain and suffering and they should not have to be subjected to such hurtful and harmful accusations, especially on their own memorial pages for their lost loved ones because these bullies are protected by their "Freedom of Speech". These people should be treated and tried as criminals. That is the least we can do to honor these victims.

Of course Sandy Hook was horrendous crime. But should we even consider restrictions to our First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech "to honor these victims"?

It is not the speech we agree with that needs protecting, but that which we find offensive if we are to be free.

[FurthurBB]

Likely Guy, on 16 January 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

Hurtful lies and half-truths can spread like wildfire. Unfortunately, the truth takes her own sweet time.

Then again, I have no respect for the media. That is, today's 'internet' media of bloggers, special interest forums and you-tube posters.

It's like they're standing up in a crowded movie theatre and yelling "FIRE!" when there is none, all the while claiming the 1st Ammendment.

That is true and some of it is downright dangerous.  I mean there is a whole online community of people who want to 'recover' their autistic children that encourage each other to do the most insane and dangerous things to a very vulnerable group of people who cannot defend themselves.  That to me goes beyond free speech, but I do not think saying the Sandy Hook tragedy was a hoax does.  People can say that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that the Holocaust never happened (in the US at least) or even that the germ theory of disease is all together wrong.

[acidhead]

Now Anderson Cooper is discussing this topic as we speak on CNN.... check it out.

[Yamato]

Being exempt from 1st Amendment protection does not rise to a "ban" on communication.   Here we go with another deliberate polarized topic between "banning" something and leaving it alone.

The 1st Amendment isn't applicable in cases of false advertising, libel, slander, and so forth.  This doesn't mean that there will be a federal bureau of suit-wearing monkeys rushing to the rescue of our defenseless civilians, like people who can't respect the 2nd Amendment like to visualize happening with peoples' guns.   It means that if someone wants to sue someone for any of these grievances, there is a legal recourse to do so and the 1st Amendment defense probably won't hold up in court.

[Yamato]

FurthurBB, on 16 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

That is true and some of it is downright dangerous.  I mean there is a whole online community of people who want to 'recover' their autistic children that encourage each other to do the most insane and dangerous things to a very vulnerable group of people who cannot defend themselves.  That to me goes beyond free speech, but I do not think saying the Sandy Hook tragedy was a hoax does.  People can say that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that the Holocaust never happened (in the US at least) or even that the germ theory of disease is all together wrong.

If someone lied to you about a car you bought, told you it had features it didn't have, told you it had performance it didn't have, told you it had a warranty it didn't have, capabilities, and so on and so forth, and you find out months later that the bill of goods you were sold is a pack of lies, that liar doesn't have 1st Amendment protection in court when you show up to sue his family stones off.   There might be other extraneous circumstances that mean you lose the suit, but if you can document the dishonesty, the 1st Amendment isn't going to be the reason you lost.

It's money that matters in all things USA.  If someone takes advantage of you and money was exchanged, or if you can prove a financial loss due to someone's words, actions, etc. then protections like the 1st aren't going to hold up in court.   Hasina already provided the guidelines that matter here.   I think we should discuss what is free speech and what isn't because our courts are going to it for us anyway; it would be better to play a part in those determinations than not to.

[Hasina]

WHO U KIDDIN, on 16 January 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

As your links point out there are already certain restrictions in place to the First Amendment, and if these Hoax sites meet the criteria of the current law then there should be no need for further restrictions and penalties. This call for more regulation is an alarmist reaction that can only lead to further erosion of our rights.

I had to like your post, you looked at the data without attributing it to me. I don't agree with the idea of stopping the discussion of hoaxes and conspiracies, even with ones that deal with such tragedies.

[acidhead]

Yamato, on 16 January 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

If someone lied to you about a car you bought, told you it had features it didn't have, told you it had performance it didn't have, told you it had a warranty it didn't have, capabilities, and so on and so forth, and you find out months later that the bill of goods you were sold is a pack of lies, that liar doesn't have 1st Amendment protection in court when you show up to sue his family stones off.   There might be other extraneous circumstances that mean you lose the suit, but if you can document the dishonesty, the 1st Amendment isn't going to be the reason you lost.

It's money that matters in all things USA.  If someone takes advantage of you and money was exchanged, or if you can prove a financial loss due to someone's words, actions, etc. then protections like the 1st aren't going to hold up in court.   Hasina already provided the guidelines that matter here.   I think we should discuss what is free speech and what isn't because our courts are going to it for us anyway; it would be better to play a part in those determinations than not to.

Exactly.

How soooon some forget all the laughing and ranting they gave the muslims who were upset over the the cartoons of Mohammed.... that was free speech and it was meant to excite negativity..... it was also capitalized upon by many authors and radio and TV.