« Abused Child Treated to McDonalds, Moonbat Enraged | Main | Moonbat Memorial Day Weekend »

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again; the First Amendment was gutted by repeated court decisions that there are such things as "protected speech" and "unprotected speech". Now on the one hand you can argue that the FA only applies narrowly, to "the press", which one could take to mean even just newspapers, not even TV. Or you can argue that it only applies to political comment and journalism, but the inclusion of the term "speech" is most rationally interpreted to mean "communications in general"; everything written or printed or broadcast. And if that's the case, then that's it. You can't censor anything- not the words of Bin Laden or pictures of people having sex, or any such thing.

But conservatives haven't stood up for that first amendment, and have supported the idea that it only covers some speech- "nice" speech effectively, by passing and applauding laws which censor obscenity. So from that position it's hard to argue when the Left decide to censor their form of obscenity- insult, offense and so on. The mistake was in agreeing that the amendment doesn't cover all speech in the first place. And it's worth noting that the amendment itself contain no caveats; no hint that courts may divide speech into sheep and goats. It's either all, or nothing.

Worth adding that a free speech "fundamentalist" approach doesn't mean that speech must be without consequences. If I declare that I'm Osama Bin Towalhad and I'm going to bomb somewhere next week, the police have every right to investigate me. Only the speech itself is protected. You can't arrest me for saying that; but it can be used as evidence of conspiracy (though obviously one would hope more evidence would be needed for a conviction that one statement by a blowhard on the internets).

Checks and Balances? We don't need no stinkin' Checks and Balances. We are out to change things.

Sadly, Ian is all too correct. Our own chickens are coming home to roost. We should have demanded the FCC be obliterated and that Congress should be held in contempt of court for passing such inane laws. Pretty soon, we're going to be at the point of no return. What will we do then?

Thank god someone will finally stand up to that obese windbag Limbaugh. We as a Country can do better.

Meh,
The Constitution has been under steady assault by those who desire totalitarianism: socialists, communists, far right fascists etc.... since before WWII and the messiah(pbuh) has made no secret of his marxist leanings. Unfortunately unlike Jimmy Carter(spit) he is going to have a super majority of other marxist leaning totalitarians in both the house and senate and I believe we will see three maybe four Supremes retire during the next Presidency and the messiah(pbuh) will nominate and the Senate will confirm some far left judges, hell we may even see someone like bill ayers nominated. All this because right now the majority of Americans have their heads buried in their asses and are more concerned with who the next American idol is than what their government is doing.

Leave to me to disagree. I think there is a sound basis for permitting localities to censor obscenity and pronography. I don't think such are vital to the survival of the Republic. Political discourse, on the other hand, should be free and uninhibited. Only a fool could fail to see the difference.

The problem is, we are governed by fools. Thanks to McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court, political speech is more regulated than obscenity or pronography ... which is a real obscenity.

Or, perhaps not fools after all, since so many are gladly willing to surrender their right to free political speech in return for the unrestricted right to look at pron. Breads and Circuses.

They're also gutting the Second Amendment too. See the new "Assault Weapon Ban 2007" fronted by the Democrats. It will basically ban any rifle with a detachable magazine, and a pistol grip.
Even the venerable "M1 Carbine" will be banned:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h1022:

V, it's not a question of what's vital to the survival of the Republic. It's a question of what's constitutional. If you're going to decide that the constitution doesn't cover some things you don't like, you can't complain when somebody else says it doesn't cover what they don't like.

You have to bear in mind that the moonbat left see "hate speech" in precisely the same terms as somebody else might see sexual obscenity; as something which is not a valid form of expression. They genuinely see it that way; there is speech and there is hate speech, and these are two different things. They certainly don't see anything they class as hate speech as political discourse.

It's not for judges or juries or anyone to decide what is valid or acceptable speech. If you get in that situation, nobody is safe, because nobody can know whether they are breaking the law until they're already in court; and that is an impossible situation. To use the pr0n analogy; there is a legal separation which says it's not pr0n if it has "artistic merit". But who is to decide whether it has? A judge? Are the courts art critics now? What if I believe my work is art, and somebody else decides it isn't? How do you define art?

Likewise, imagine standing in court trying to prove that something you said on your talk radio show is poltical commentary, when somebody is accusing you of hate speech. Who will decide? How will you prove it either way? How can you know when you say it what a court in the future may decide?

Anyway, we're still back to the constitutional position that the first amendment doesn't have any caveats. It covers all speech. Once you decide to ignore that, it's worthless.

some Grade-A moonbattery for a Saturday afternoon...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_en_mo/people_jessica_lange

May I ask for someone to just post the HTML tags (if that is the correct term) for in front and at the end of a URL?

Thanks.

Hey, Barry! Screw you! You have to "hush" the voices who oppose your Marxist plans for this nation, you Stalinist thug, because there's certainly no way you can win a discussion of any issue "on the merits."

Liberal talk-radio couldn't make it on it's own (no wonder; who wants to listen to idiots spewing idiocy 24/7?), so you're just gonna shut down Rush, eh? Don't think so, pal. Let's just say you've got a fight on your hands.

Besides that, Rush is pretty nice to you and your ilk. Maybe you should listen to the Great One (Mark Levin), who eviscerates you morons every time he opens his mouth -- but of course you wouldn't dare go up against him in a fair, one-on-one debate of the issues you care so much about -- he'd kill you dead (figuratively, of course!). The man actually possesses intelligence, and knows whereof he speaks (unlike you, Mr. "Lost Without His Tele-prompter"; for an Ivy League graduate, you sound as if your IQ is in the 60-80 range, whenever you don't have something prepared and spoon-fed to you -- "Uh, uh, uh," etc.).

And, hey, you're good at attacking women (cf., Hillary), so you would also have to go after Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, et al. -- oh, yeah -- looking forward to seeing how that turns out!

God help us all if this dolt is elected President (personally, I cannot conceive of how anyone with a brain could vote for this pathetic empty suit, but then, that's me . . .)!

Oiao, if you wanted to post, for instance-

Hey look at this great website!

With the link to http://www.moonbattery.com and the text of the link saying "great website" you would type-

Hey look at this <a href="http://www.moonbattery.com">great website</a>!

The first tag (including "a href" opens the tag; you must include the </a> to close it.

Hope this is clear.

Uhmmmm....about those pristine ANWR refuges that we can't disturb by drilling for oil.

Personally, I think we ought to drill the shit out of them as soon as possible. Once we get the hippies and hookers out of the way.

Ian,

I read you LC. Thanks for the fishing rod.

As for this topic, it comes down to economics in the marketplace.

Liberal slanted radio pulls in very small to no ad revenue. I could and might go pull the supporting 'facts' on this claim, but I am busy learning some simple HTML tags.

Conserative talk radio is king in generating ad revenue.

As would be expected, we can assume that the liberals are pandering to the base, which has very little buying power......and the market ignores them. This is not to mention the additional fact that liberal talk radio is just plain boring and without merit.....

Liberal Talk Radio = Talk to Loosers, get treated as a Looser in the marketplace.

The reason there is no (sucessful) liberal talk radio is because liberals just want their freebie hand-outs; they don't want to talk about them.

Also, there's not that much to talk about. Take other peoples' money, and give it to the people you deem to deserve it more. The end.

But the main reason is because talk radio is an outlet and catharsis for people who are alarmed, disappointed, and concerned over the taking over of the whole private sphere by statist idealists. Since the statist idealists already pretty much control the whole planet now, there's nothing for them to be alarmed and concerned about, so there's no reason to tune in to talk radio. It is only a matter of dividing up the spoils, which doesn't involve radio.

OT-

More heartwarming news on Britain's fine nationalised healthcare system. 32,000 beds lost in the last decade.

Even the UN gasbags admit the world is tired of the global warming hoax and wants to move on already.

KOBE, Japan -- The world is losing momentum in the battle against global warming, the U.N. climate chief warned on Saturday, urging environmental ministers from wealthy nations to revive the effort......

First talk radio, then blogs. Then our guns,,,,let them try and take our guns. If Hussein Obama wins, the America we love is going to have to be fought for again.

OT - but is it? Now the world revolves around Osama Obama....

Newsweek has created a ”Racial Resentment Index” exclusively for white people without measuring such biases of non-whites.

OT - Muzzie Alert....

LGF has a good blog on ” Sabotaging Anti-Terror Training in Seattle”

Note where the Chief of Police embraces the CAIR concerns.

MoonBats have a hard time understanding the greed of man as human nature. They try to rationalize it away or legislate it, but ……….in the UK, and no doubt everywhere……
Eco-farming ditched as food prices soar
Crop profits are tempting farmers away from schemes to preserve wildlife

Hussein claims that anti-Latino hate-crime has “doubled” last year. Bullshit! Not only did no hate-crimes double in the last year, they have not doubled in the last 10 years! Any data indicating otherwise, does not exist.

http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=427

A RELATED ARTICLE: HTTP://GENELALOR.COM/)

OBAMA XXIII: THE THOUGHT THAT DARE NOT BE SPOKEN: THE BLACK VOTE AND VOTER IN 2008

We all know that some thoughts, some words, some ideas dare not be articulated in Politically Correct, 21st Century America.

The thought that African-Americans will vote en masse for Senator Barack Hussein Obama in November is one of them. The words "reverse racism" are off the table. The idea that our next president could be elected mainly because he happens to be half Black is relegated to the dustbin of bigotry and intolerance.

Of course, any general election brings into play a multiplicity of factors and factions and opinions.

Constituting 12.9% of the population, Blacks obviously can’t elect a president based simply on their numbers, which is where those other factors, factions, and opinions enter the picture. They include the previously addressed White Guilt influence as well as a feeling that America needs “change,” a change from the Clinton-Bush dynasties, a change from the old, a change for the sake of change.

Trouble is, when change, the favorite buzzword of the Obama campaign, is predicated on a vacuous philosophy, based on emotion rather than reason, rooted in some sort of recompense to Black Americans for sundry evils their race has endured, it really becomes reparations. In turn, the idea of reparations paid by White Americans to African Americans for sins the former never committed and sins from which the latter never suffered enters the world of absurdity.

More than enough has already been written and spoken about Obama’s lack of experience, his associations with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and professed insurrectionist William Ayers, his new and equally-vile pastor, Reverend Otis Moss Jr., his bitter wife, Michelle Robinson Obama, and his vague platform. But precious little has been written about what four years of a President Barack Hussein Obama’s administration would mean for the United States and for our place in the international community.

Naysayers would immediately contend that America is already in dire straits and that our reputation and influence abroad have already been compromised so what can we lose?

Well, here’s a wakeup call for the naysayers and the fence-sitters: As a result of an Obama presidency, we could lose far more than most Americans can imagine!

OT -

Pressured by animal-rights groups, school chops ‘chicken project’

Remember this as a pivotal win for PETA to go after 4-H this year….

As for the district, Thomas said, “it’s never a happy feeling saying you’re bowing to a public pressure you don’t agree with, and yet we all make those decisions from time to time.”

Jesica Lange, another Hollywood Moonbat Harridan.

Australia: 12 year old girl's mothers says, "she's a boy! Start the hormone therapy".

Dad says, um, no.

Court says, um, yes.

Girl now on drugs to prevent periods and stop puberty.

OT -

Just in case you missed your invitations to remember and honor our Veterans on this holiday (those who have fought and died for our freedoms), check out the MoonBat Central intellectual gathering in Radford Virginia on 24 – 25 May.

Use this link and scroll to the bottom of the page for speakers and papers presenting just about all of the conspiracy theory MoonBat beliefs you can stomach.

This is your future Obamanation’s agenda.

Barf Alert – The Building a New World Conference agenda includes such can’t miss items like:

VENEZUELA: LEADER OF THE 21ST CENTURY and then later, BUILDING A MOVEMENT AGAINST MILITARISM (those two topics form the first Oxymoronic matching, no?)

9/11 TRUTH followed by a session on Palestine, and then capped of on a presentation on Immigrant Rights (do they mean rights for Illegal Immigrants from Palestine?)

PETA gets in the act too! – a viewing of ‘EARTHLINGS’ (the movie) "This is the single most powerful and informative movie about society's treatment of animals. A must see for anyone who cares enough to know."

The Impeachment crowd (BDS) is represented with a moderated discussion - TRIAL AND INDICTMENT OF BUSH ET AL

Check the agend for the rest – it’s worth a good laugh.

Forgot to add on the above post -

The bottom of the page is a good reference list of MoonBats and associated universities, causes and political action associations = good intel

Ian

I'm afraid too few Americans see the first amendment as clearly as you do. Each group, conservative or lieral seems to hav etheir pet group they want to silence. They don't want to understand that silenncing what offends one person, silences everyone. Look at Canada. A man was fined for posting a billboard with a bible verse.

It has been said that if we took a vote tomorrow to get rid of the first amendment, it would be eliminated. Scary but true.

oiao - tnx for the link to that conference.

It's hard to know what to say to that conference program. It's so .... completely .... insane. It defies description, comment, or analysis.

In the dark days of the Clinton presidency I read about a journalist who did a "man on the street" survey. He asked people to agree or disagree with each item he read from a piece of paper and state whether they thought it should be the law in America.
Most people disagreed with nearly every item and said it should not be the law.
It was the Bill of Rights.

I weep for the future.

Just as a matter of interest, for you Americans to have a laugh at, here's the equivalent from the EU's "European Convention On Human Rights".

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

Hey great! That sounds pretty good!

This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Oh, so we have freedom of expression except on radio, TV and cinema. Well, at least that doesn't cover the internet and newspapers and stuff...

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities...

Hey, hold on a sec...

...may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Well, that covers pretty much every excuse to ban freedom of expression there is, then. Sigh.

Ian - 'they' are watching you. LOL

I guess the EU did not get as much milage out of the Magna Carta as we in the US think.

I have lot's of silly associates who travel, and think that just because english is spoken in a country, they have a right to freedom of expression (as in the US's First), but they don't.

A couple of them have found out the hard way over petty issues with the local police, that ended up turning into big problems, because my associates demanded thier rights....................... Bet you've see that before.

In looking at the posts above, I just want to throw NPR and the BBC into the fold. They rant to the left, but they are funded by the tax payer in each respective country.

They would not survive on ad revenue at all.

If all this rigts curtailment, with regard to freedom of expression/speech, was evenly distributed, it'd be threatening and bad, but we'd find a way to live with it. Sadly, though, it's mostly a euphamism for being reaaaallllly carefull what you say about violent psycho-killer Moslems now living and multiplying in our midst. As such, the entire debate about traditional Western freedoms is exposed as, simply, a cowardly response by autorities to the threat of Islam, period. That is what makes it so distasteful. I don't see anyone barking about use of the word "vagina" on network TV 300 times an hour, or the THOUSANDS of openly-expressed hatred incidents toward Jews, or even mysogeny. It's all about staving off the blood-lust of the murderous killers surrounding and colonizing our peaceful, tolerant countries, nothing more. I just wish they'd call it what it is. There is no real fear of people having full freedoms of speech and expression, in the abstract. The fear is that someone will say something and then some Islam dude is going to blow up a building or take out a bus or something. We are all gonna have to learn to stand up to that, eventually.

You don't understand, you mean, cold-hearted capitalists! It's all about being faiiiirrrr..

Every time you turn off the dial when a liberal is on the air, a Hispanic-American dies! And every time you switch on Rush, a Latino is denied free health care!! How can you not care about their plight?

The fact that no-one wants to listen to liberal talk radio is completely irrelevent. Air-time must be taken from conservatives and given to liberals.

This is so despite the fact that liberal talk radio failed precisely because no-one listened to it in the first place.

To say that this indicates people will just switch the radio off when Randi Rhode's dulcet tones are forced onto their airwaves is to use crude, bourgeois logic, and will not be tolerated.