First Amendment vs Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstitutionCowboy said:
The First Amendment is not absolute, it is nuanced. It says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...." Note that it does not say, "...abridging speech." This means Congress can not make any laws that would alter the meaning of or limit what you say. It can, however, proscribe punishment for the use foul language or for slander and libel. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but does not recognize a right to free speech.

I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction.

What is the difference between "limiting what you say" and "proscribing punishment for the use of [certain words, e.g.] "foul language"?
 
I'm sure you understand slander, libel, and perjury. If I choose to say or publish something of those natures, nothing can stop me. I can, however, be made to suffer consequences or pay restitution. With a right to free speech, I'd have the unfettered ability to say anything I want with no consequences regardless of what I said or how I said it.

I can tell someone to go away from me. Leave me alone. How I say that can have some negative consequences. For instance, If I tell that person to go away using the vulgar vernacular version of, "Go engage in a self-gratifying activity utilizing your own bodily extremities and orifices," in a public place where foul language is prohibited, I can be charged with violating that statute. If I simply say, "Leave me alone. Go away!" I've said the same thing - and Congress can make no law abridging what I just said, therefore, no crime has been committed. What I said is fine. How I say it could be a problem.


Congress cannot pass a law telling me I cannot expose the finer proclivities or shortcomings of a particular politician, or express my own opinion of said politician, but it can pass law that might exclude the use of certain words I might like to use in that opinion or expose`.

Woody
 
People will argue this forever,rightwingers leftwingers, It all comes down to what the powers that be say,but we should know It's our God given right to be able to defend oneself no matter where you travel.No one has a right to take someones life, or do them great bodly harm,but for thoses who try, this
is one reason i support the 2nd,SOME People can get crazy trying to defind
there reason for us not to have a 2nd but there ideals are far out weighed by
the people who get car jacked, home invasion, murders, elderly getting Raped,
Your posessions being stolen, you and your family getting violated by someone who does not care about you.This is one reason why I will always say yes to the 2nd.There are thousands who fought and died so i could have this right,We cant allow anyone to take this away from the ones who know
they have a right to not live in Fear.SUPPORT YOUR 2ND ALLWAYS
 
The important point

22-rimfire
I don't want to restrict either the first or second amendments.

When it comes to restricting things, the Bill of Rights is quite clear. The only right that can't be restricted at all is the "right to keep and bear arms." What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the supposedly educated press to understand???

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top