I think the idea of the 1st amendment is great, but 2020 has showed us that the bill of rights only exists when it is convenient to the state and the elites. So I don't think we should pretend like we are any better off than places like the U. K. or Canada. A piece of paper is meaningless, we have to actually defend our free speech with our own hands (and guns). Complacency will be the death of us.
How is the 1st amendment bonkers? Imagine living in a world where you get punished because someone higher up doesn’t agree with your opinion? Imagine getting jailed because you speak up against what higher ups think?
1st Amendment is free speech or in other words. If we did not have It you could not have posted this to question if it were bonkers! Another thing is our 13 colonies kicked his British ancestors out Because of things just like that. Called it "revolutionary war"
When people who hold opinions that the government dislikes are arrested, imprisoned, fined, and if you live in China, murdered or tortured, they clearly don't have freedom of speech.
The UK is a first world country in which people are getting sentenced for making an edgy joke. In Canada a guy was fined for calling his biologically female child 'daughter'. Japan does not even have real free speech, as it is superseded by decency laws. Damn near every other country in the entire world has 'hate speech' laws. The US is without a doubt an exception to the rule and people are taking the constitution for granted.
Every nation that recognizes that people have rights should fight to keep them. What I don't understand is how willing people are to throw their rights away for the sake of convenience.
America does have hate speech laws too. The problem is who determines what speech is lawful and which isn't. There are legitimate limits, i. e. responsibilities that come with rights, but those limits shouldn't be determined by whether or not someone might be offended.
Free speach: You can shout fire in a crowded theater. But... Only if there really is one. You can criticize your government, but you can't incite violence or commit slander... Unfortunately, the slander bit seems to be a favorite passtime of the news media, politicians, and pundits. And basically the whole internet.
@Sarahr123 again, what can be considered “bullying” and “disrespect” is very subjective. Who gets to determine that?
(And do you even know what a narcissist is? Lol)
The only time I think it’s reasonable to make saying certain things illegal is maybe if you’re inciting violence. Like yelling “bomb!” on a plane or something. But even then, I don’t even think it should be illegal, but just the airlines should deny you service from there on out.
If any of the amendments is bonkers, you can't handle democracy and a free country. All of the amendments are there for very good and needed reasons, It's when you stop seeing the good and actual needed meanings to why there are amendments and what they are meeded for it could get very very dangerous in the society.
@pokerbot It doesn't matter. He was simply able. To excercise that freedom, even if just a joke, is freedom of speech.
What prominent men in the west who wear that now?
I know World War II Renactors who are taking a break from public activities until things settle down, because the fear of their hobby having consequences.
Fuck him, I hope he gets drone'd. That Ginger embarrassment has no right to be in the US and should promptly fuck off. I'm sure if anybody gets caught for gunning his pansy ass and his try-hard cunt of a wife down, they will walk out of court with a medal.
Given the abuse of speech restrictions in Europe and Canada (used by elites to muzzle. criticism of their traitorous policies which lack popular support), I’d say it’s more relevant than ever. But that pampered simp would never understand that.
This is why we couldn't give a rat's ass about royalty. The first amendment guarantees your right to choose your religion, choose what you say, and guarantees the press can tell the truth no matter who likes it or doesn't.
So what he said is basically "why are these peons allowed to speak? Or choose their own faith? Or get information we don't approve of?"
He was talking about "journalists" using it to justify flying helicopters and drones over the place they were living, photographing his children, and even breaking their way onto the property. Maybe he could move to Texas, and shoot them all?
As a U. S. citizen since 1959 I can tell you that the first amendment is the most important document in U. S. history. It defines what America is period.
The first amendment isn't a document. It's a section in the bill of rights, which was made after the declaration of independence. It was based largely on the concepts written in the Magna Carta.
The bill of rights does not define america. It is a declaration of the natural rights of man that cannot be stopped by rule or law as they derive there power from a greater "order"
The amendments after the initial 10 were add ons, used largely to clarify the initial 10 because some people would hold interpretations contrary to the intent of the initial 10.
The bill of rights s and it's subsequent amendments are what is refered to as a "living document". This means that it can be changed and altered over time. Amendments once deemed as essential could in theory be repealed. This includes even the initial 10.
In theory the right to free speech has the power to determine its not natural law. And thus it can repeal itself, then you no longer have free speech. I believe this is why it's number 1 as it has the power to repeal or amend all of the other rights, including itself
@LZPanzer The bill of rights most definitely is a document as are all the codified laws of the United States. You obviously don't understand legal theory.
@Leavesbound I'm not saying the bill of rights isn't a document of the USA. The original reply was talking about how the individual amendment was an individual document. When it's a set of 10 all rolled into one document, amendments 1-10 with additional amendments added on as the years passed.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
87Opinion
I think the idea of the 1st amendment is great, but 2020 has showed us that the bill of rights only exists when it is convenient to the state and the elites. So I don't think we should pretend like we are any better off than places like the U. K. or Canada. A piece of paper is meaningless, we have to actually defend our free speech with our own hands (and guns). Complacency will be the death of us.
How is the 1st amendment bonkers? Imagine living in a world where you get punished because someone higher up doesn’t agree with your opinion? Imagine getting jailed because you speak up against what higher ups think?
1st Amendment is free speech or in other words. If we did not have
It you could not have posted this to question if it were bonkers!
Another thing is our 13 colonies kicked his British ancestors out
Because of things just like that. Called it "revolutionary war"
Thing that baffles me is the pride Americans have over having a basic human right as if no other 1st world country has freedom of speech
When people who hold opinions that the government dislikes are arrested, imprisoned, fined, and if you live in China, murdered or tortured, they clearly don't have freedom of speech.
Almost like it's a communist dictatorship with enough qualities to fall into the bracket of not being a 1st world country
Your comment is case and point
The UK is a first world country in which people are getting sentenced for making an edgy joke. In Canada a guy was fined for calling his biologically female child 'daughter'. Japan does not even have real free speech, as it is superseded by decency laws. Damn near every other country in the entire world has 'hate speech' laws. The US is without a doubt an exception to the rule and people are taking the constitution for granted.
Is it tho
NO country has free speech even America.
But no other country has freedom of speech...
Written on a piece of paper no, in terms of reality most countries do bar the Chinas and North Koreas of the world
You can get arrested in other countries for not using the right gender pronoun for fucksake.
Every nation that recognizes that people have rights should fight to keep them. What I don't understand is how willing people are to throw their rights away for the sake of convenience.
America does have hate speech laws too. The problem is who determines what speech is lawful and which isn't. There are legitimate limits, i. e. responsibilities that come with rights, but those limits shouldn't be determined by whether or not someone might be offended.
No other country does. We are basically unique in the degree in which we protect speach.
Regarding the update: pretty much, people being wankstains tend to cite "freedom of speech" as if its freedom from the consequences of their words
Romania has a free speech provision in their constitution too.
Free speach: You can shout fire in a crowded theater. But... Only if there really is one. You can criticize your government, but you can't incite violence or commit slander... Unfortunately, the slander bit seems to be a favorite passtime of the news media, politicians, and pundits. And basically the whole internet.
He's a monarch who doesn't like the idea of peasants being able to say disapproving things about him without consequence.
About as British as you can get.
Regarding your update: you're an idiot.
If he was attempting to get out of the public eye; he really buggered that up (to borrow a British phrase).
It's fine. But he's got an elite persons perspective. You shouldn't bother listening to him about anything.
@Sarahr123 again, what can be considered “bullying” and “disrespect” is very subjective. Who gets to determine that?
(And do you even know what a narcissist is? Lol)
The only time I think it’s reasonable to make saying certain things illegal is maybe if you’re inciting violence. Like yelling “bomb!” on a plane or something. But even then, I don’t even think it should be illegal, but just the airlines should deny you service from there on out.
If any of the amendments is bonkers, you can't handle democracy and a free country.
All of the amendments are there for very good and needed reasons, It's when you stop seeing the good and actual needed meanings to why there are amendments and what they are meeded for it could get very very dangerous in the society.
Try to change or take away any of the amendments and that is the path to a totalitarian dictature society.
18th?
He can't fathom being able to say "the n word" in public without getting arrested.
Can you imagine getting arrested over something so fucking stupid? What a fucking shithole the United Kingdom must be!
Your an idiot if you think that this is true.
@jack187625 Do enlighten me then.
Yeah remember how they threw count dankula in jail for teaching his dog to zeig hail as a joke.
The UK is a police state, and one that hates and suppresses it's native population.
@Juxtapose Where the US goes, the UK follows.
Hate speech is illegal, not words. Big difference. Cretin.
@jack187625 Hate speech consists of speech.. a. k. a words.
@Feelicks 100%
Speech and context. Like a lot of things, context is key.
Coming from an Ex-Prince who once wore a nazi swastika at a party in his youth, you would think he would value things like the First Amendment.
I'm pretty sure that was intended as a joke, not a statement of allegiance.
@pokerbot It doesn't matter. He was simply able. To excercise that freedom, even if just a joke, is freedom of speech.
What prominent men in the west who wear that now?
I know World War II Renactors who are taking a break from public activities until things settle down, because the fear of their hobby having consequences.
Is wearing a swastika funny?
Fuck him, I hope he gets drone'd. That Ginger embarrassment has no right to be in the US and should promptly fuck off. I'm sure if anybody gets caught for gunning his pansy ass and his try-hard cunt of a wife down, they will walk out of court with a medal.
Given the abuse of speech restrictions in Europe and Canada (used by elites to muzzle. criticism of their traitorous policies which lack popular support), I’d say it’s more relevant than ever. But that pampered simp would never understand that.
Exactly. He is a simp
This is why we couldn't give a rat's ass about royalty. The first amendment guarantees your right to choose your religion, choose what you say, and guarantees the press can tell the truth no matter who likes it or doesn't.
So what he said is basically "why are these peons allowed to speak? Or choose their own faith? Or get information we don't approve of?"
I think generally speaking most Dutch people would find the nearly infinite free speech granted by the First Amendment bonkers.
Dutch people are even more blunt than Americans if anything they’re even more free speech
The degree to which people are blunt doesn’t really factor in to the legal limits of free speech here
Lol you’re really overestimating Dutch bluntness if you think that people are not in favour of hate speech laws
Even at big national events, a lot of people are in favour of e. g. banning protests even if peaceful because it may upset children
Oh ok
To be honest the American constitution is bonkers and so 1700's
You'd think they would have developed mentally to move up from it. Instead of clinging to it like frightened children, after their parents have died.
Yes much better to have a hereditary monarch and arrest people for petty insults.
He was talking about "journalists" using it to justify flying helicopters and drones over the place they were living, photographing his children, and even breaking their way onto the property. Maybe he could move to Texas, and shoot them all?
As a U. S. citizen since 1959 I can tell you that the first amendment is the most important document in U. S. history. It defines what America is period.
The first amendment isn't a document. It's a section in the bill of rights, which was made after the declaration of independence. It was based largely on the concepts written in the Magna Carta.
The bill of rights does not define america. It is a declaration of the natural rights of man that cannot be stopped by rule or law as they derive there power from a greater "order"
The amendments after the initial 10 were add ons, used largely to clarify the initial 10 because some people would hold interpretations contrary to the intent of the initial 10.
The bill of rights s and it's subsequent amendments are what is refered to as a "living document". This means that it can be changed and altered over time. Amendments once deemed as essential could in theory be repealed. This includes even the initial 10.
In theory the right to free speech has the power to determine its not natural law. And thus it can repeal itself, then you no longer have free speech.
I believe this is why it's number 1 as it has the power to repeal or amend all of the other rights, including itself
@LZPanzer The bill of rights most definitely is a document as are all the codified laws of the United States. You obviously don't understand legal theory.
@Leavesbound I'm not saying the bill of rights isn't a document of the USA. The original reply was talking about how the individual amendment was an individual document. When it's a set of 10 all rolled into one document, amendments 1-10 with additional amendments added on as the years passed.
Puppet Harry does not think anything. His puppeter Megan thinks that and he speak what his puppeter want.
Prince Harry is bloody bonkers! What an effing tosser!