1st amendment also under attack?

1st amendment also under attack?

This is a discussion on 1st amendment also under attack? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm sure we've all heard the constant news stories about Rush Limbaugh. I've got some liberal friends on my facebook who have been constantly posting ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree11Likes
  • 2 Post By varob
  • 5 Post By suntzu
  • 1 Post By Stubborn
  • 3 Post By oakchas

Thread: 1st amendment also under attack?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146

    1st amendment also under attack?

    I'm sure we've all heard the constant news stories about Rush Limbaugh. I've got some liberal friends on my facebook who have been constantly posting anti-Rush related things. But today I was staggered when I saw a poll on the front page of CNN.COM asking if Rush should be banned from the air. TO my surprise, 43% have voted YES. Obviously those 43% are not fans of Rush and that is fine. But do those 43% of people understand what it would mean to actually ban somebody from the air because of their opinions? Do they not understand that once we start down that road, other things will be banned too? Eventually we'll be The United States of North Korea.

    However, having seen this brings to light a few things for me regarding the second amendment. Lots of people don't like guns and their knee-jerk reaction is "ban all guns." They don't stop to think about the larger picture, what the second amendment is all about. I believe it is the same group of society who can make knee-jerk reactions on a poll like this without thinking about the first amendment.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    I think (hope) that if it ever came to that the true patriots would mobilize.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,452
    I say let Capitalism decide if Rush should be on the air.
    Stubborn and msgt/ret like this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,891
    I really would not worry about the 1at A being violated if Rush is taken off the air due to folks not tuning in. As long as he has sponsors he will be on the air. Only if a law is passed banning him then it becomes a 1st A issue. Lookee right here on this forum when a member started a thread and wanted everybody to write National Geo Channel to voice our dis approval of Domesday Preppers because they "made gun owners look bad". That is a right folks have just as folks voicing they would like to see Rush off the air. I really don't care about such things. Coming up next is going be a backlash from religious groups about the new show "GCB" because it might offend Christinas.
    I just don't get my panties in a wad over such trivial things that won't happen. I am as worried about this poll as am I :
    1. Doomsday Preppers making us look bad
    2. UN treaties trumping the Constitution
    3. If Obama's was born here (I will worry when there is real evidence, not the layered photoshop theory)
    4. President Bush flew the planes into the WTC and Dick Cheney fired a missle into the Pentagon
    5. My cholesterol,
    6. My dogs choleterol
    Last edited by suntzu; March 12th, 2012 at 01:37 PM. Reason: dropped the word ridiculus to be PC

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    This is not a first amendment issue, unless it is the FCC which moves to remove him from the air.
    That is remotely possible and extraordinarily unlikely. The grounds would be language used, and that
    would be a thin charge given what often goes out across the air these days.

    As I understand it, it is private companies which have chosen to withdraw their advertising dollars and
    private investors who own the station and may keep him or not, subject only to whatever contract terms they have
    with him.

    Now, I do think the woman should sue the living crap out of him for slander. She isn't a public figure, she isn't a
    politician, his comments appear to have been made with a total disregard for factual truth, and from a position
    of malice. He will lose. Whether or not she chooses this route only time will tell.

    The first amendment doesn't protect us from the consequences of libel and slander; never has, and never will.
    And even being a public figure (which the woman isn't) may not be sufficient a shield to those who cross that line:
    Carol Burnett proved that with a famous case in which she successfully sued those who lied about her.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    43%...that sounds about right. Most likely the same 43% that support big government, and think the government should be all things to all people.
    You know what I mean, if you don't work, that's OK the government will support you and your 11 illegimate kids. You don't need a gun, the police will protect you, the government will supply food, water, transportation, cell phones, plasma TV's and Nike tennis shoes...OH and don't forget Health Care.
    Most call this 43% "sheeple" I prefer the term muppets, either way it's the same clowns.

    The sad part is, our 1st Amendment rights have been under attack for quite some time now. It began when laws were legislated against "hate speech"
    msgt/ret likes this.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    As I understand it, it is private companies which have chosen to withdraw their advertising dollars and
    private investors who own the station and may keep him or not, subject only to whatever contract terms they have
    with him.
    Yes, but in the context of this poll, they are asking if the government should ban him from the airwaves. That is why I was so shocked to see 43% thinking that was a good idea.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Inspector71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    982
    Polls are polls are polls. No one ever bothers to poll me or anybody I know on anything.
    If you can read this, thank a teacher. Because it's in English, thank a vet

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,421
    Rights are always under attack, always under revision.

    Don't think so? Look at it this way... When slaves were declared freemen... Some property owners lost huge, huge investments in farm equipment.

    I am not supporting slavery.

    But slaves sold for as much as $5-600 in the early 1800's. Those dollars in today's value would buy a car. Some plantations had hundreds of slaves... Now go tell a farmer he can't have his combine anymore. he's got to hire pickers... see if he don't shoot you... or at least chase you off his land... And remember the south was nearly purely agricultural... In the mind of the slave owner, it was his property. And the Gubmint said it wasn't his any more...

    First amendment has been abridged, second has been infringed, the rights of due process have been subjugated, and ain't no "true patriots" stood up yet... don't 'spect they will any time soon.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This is not a first amendment issue, unless it is the FCC which moves to remove him from the air.
    That is remotely possible and extraordinarily unlikely. The grounds would be language used, and that
    would be a thin charge given what often goes out across the air these days.

    As I understand it, it is private companies which have chosen to withdraw their advertising dollars and
    private investors who own the station and may keep him or not, subject only to whatever contract terms they have
    with him.

    Now, I do think the woman should sue the living crap out of him for slander. She isn't a public figure, she isn't a
    politician, his comments appear to have been made with a total disregard for factual truth, and from a position
    of malice. He will lose. Whether or not she chooses this route only time will tell.

    The first amendment doesn't protect us from the consequences of libel and slander; never has, and never will.
    And even being a public figure (which the woman isn't) may not be sufficient a shield to those who cross that line:
    Carol Burnett proved that with a famous case in which she successfully sued those who lied about her.
    She is a 30 year-old activist who applied to Georgetown Law school in order to change their policy that was in line with the Catholic church (Georgetown is a Catholic institution). She and the democrat party worked very hard to get her to testify often misleading the comittees and substituting her for others who had been previously approved. She made herself a public figure and willingly entered the politcial discourse on this topic. His comments spoke directly to the illustration she was making. She later clarified her remarks to state that she was talking about hormone therapy, but in her testimony and interviews prior, she did not use that term and exclusively said "birth control".

  11. #11
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,484
    I just got an E-mail from from an individual wishing to remain anonymous very high up in Federal Government. The demand was that I close this thread.


    Hey...seriously folks you'all know the forum rules regarding politics & political discussion (in general & not firearm specific) - abortion, the Catholic church, Democrats (unrelated to the 2nd Amendment) President Obama, President Bush, Birth Control....It's all up there.


    Closed.

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,484
    The 1st Amendment as it relates to DefensiveCarry.com - Copied & Pasted from our forum rules page.

    A note on FREE SPEECH:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The First Amendment is greatly respected here, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends.
    We are, however, a privately owned venture and as such, your freedom of speech does not grant you a right to post anything you may wish to say on this forum.
    These rules are a contract you agree to when you become a member of this forum and members are expected to adhere to them.
    Those who err cannot complain about censorship, or a perceived loss of first amendment rights.
    If you do not like our rules or feel you cannot follow them, seek out a new venue to frequent, or start your own.

    If you feel you can abide by these rules, we hope that you join us on DefensiveCarry.com. We invite you to share your expertise and enjoy the camaraderie. "Share what you know, learn what you don't."
    If you do not believe you can stay within these rules, please do us all a favor and go elsewhere.
    We do not tolerate the intentional breaking of our rules.

    Thank you,
    The DefensiveCarry.com Staff
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

attack on 1st amendment

,

florida concealed carry forum 1st admendment

,

how long has the 1st ammendment been under attack

,

vote attack against 1st amendment right

Click on a term to search for related topics.