Either the 1st Amendment is a joke or SCOTUS is.

[moonman239]

Guess what? The US Supreme Court says Congress can restrict your speech. They can't prevent you from saying something, but they CAN have you punished if you do. What a joke.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

why dont you provide at least a quote or reference to a judgement to back up your comment, otherwise why bother?

[baja_yu]

I have no idea what you are referring to, but what you said sounds reasonable. Wouldn't slander fall under that description. You can say something about someone, but if it's not true you can be sued and punished for it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There have always been specific items of speech that the Supreme Court allowed to be banned. Without some specifics, this isn't even news.

[moonman239]

There have always been specific items of speech that the Supreme Court allowed to be banned. Without some specifics, this isn't even news.

No. It's not. It's outrageous! No government should have the right to punish you for what you say, unless maybe you're committing perjury or threatening the president.

As an example, a while back a girl was charged with a violation of a court order that told her not to release the names of the boys who hurt her, which is illegal according to a state law. Who thinks this law should not have been passed?

[thebuffalo]

No. It's not. It's outrageous! No government should have the right to punish you for what you say, unless maybe you're committing perjury or threatening the president.

As an example, a while back a girl was charged with a violation of a court order that told her not to release the names of the boys who hurt her, which is illegal according to a state law. Who thinks this law should not have been passed?

Your signature is so 3 weeks ago....

[Shaggy Hiker]

No. It's not. It's outrageous! No government should have the right to punish you for what you say, unless maybe you're committing perjury or threatening the president.

As an example, a while back a girl was charged with a violation of a court order that told her not to release the names of the boys who hurt her, which is illegal according to a state law. Who thinks this law should not have been passed?

So, what is it that you are complaining about? In your first paragraph (if people actually have paragraphs in forum speak), you manage to cover both sides of the position. First you say that no government should have the right, then you go ahead and list a few exceptions where you concede that the government should have the right. That's pretty much how it stands. The US Constitution has the First Amendment about freedom of speech, and the courts have interpreted that to allow for that freedom to be restricted in certain cases. You seem to feel that both positions are correct, so what is it that you are complaining about?

Furthermore, the freedom to speak isn't all that absolute in even less inflammatory situations. For instance, lying may or may not get you in any kind of trouble at all. It is just speech, but if it is speech that is intentionally incorrect, then it can lead to criminal penalties in any number of situations large and small.

So, if you really want a definitive choice regarding your first question, it would have to be this: The 1st Amendment is the joke, because there are so many situations where speech is restricted, and society won't have it any other way....though they may change their minds as to what is, and is not, allowed.

[thebuffalo]

The 1st Amendment is also very dependent on your current environment. For example, I am about to type "I have a gun", but if I were to yell that out loud right now, people in my work place would probably freak out and police would end up coming. The counter example of that is if I were in my house, with a few friends, and said "I have a gun", my friends would quickly respond "Oh, a new one?" or "Yeah? Whats new guy?". In reality though, you are free to say whatever you please, some things just have consequences.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The 1st Amendment is also very dependent on your current environment. For example, I am about to type "I have a gun", but if I were to yell that out loud right now, people in my work place would probably freak out and police would end up coming. The counter example of that is if I were in my house, with a few friends, and said "I have a gun", my friends would quickly respond "Oh, a new one?" or "Yeah? Whats new guy?". In reality though, you are free to say whatever you please, some things just have consequences.

Just for the sake of science, I think you should yell out loud, "I have gas!!!" and see what they do.

[FunkyDexter]

No need to yell. It'll anounce itself.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had, not just about the technical limits of the right of free speech, but also in the way we use that right. I think back to the incident a couple of years ago when the Danish magazine printed the pitcure of Mohammed, knowing it would rile the muslim world up. People actually died as a result of that and, while I absolutely do not condone the rioting that followed I also find myself looking at the editors of that newspaper who were smugly patting themselves on the back and declaring "we are exercising free speech" and thinking to myself, "these guys are total douches". What they did was the equivalent of walking into the local boozer, marching straight up to the skinhead in the corner with the overhung eyebrows and the prison tatoo and unloading a bunch of Yo Mama jokes at him... then acting outraged when they got punched in the face.

Too often I see people using the right of free speech to justify a right to offend and, while you do have that right (and it's important that you do), if you use it indiscrimately, you're still a toss pot.

Mind you, since Denmark's primary export is bacon I guess they didn't have a lot to lose by offending muslims.

[dbasnett]

I know that this thread is about the first amendment, but a funny thing happened when I went back to school. Linn State Technical College Begins Widespread Drug Tests.

In order for the ACLU to bring suit they needed a few students to bring the suit, so they came to campus and had meetings. I attended one and asked the ACLU lawyer if it was OK to drug test in any circumstance. They said yes, and as I recall they used airline pilots as an example. Does drug testing actually stop pilots from using drugs or alcohol? When was the last time someone, other than the pilot, lost their life or where injured because a pilot was using?

My experience has been that it is OK to trample on the rights of others as long as we are not the 'others'. Over time we have invited the government into our lives so often that it appears to be the rule and not the exception.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[InvisibleDuncan]

Does drug testing actually stop pilots from using drugs or alcohol?

Yes, it does. And as a result, it's very rare for people to lose their lives because a pilot is drunk.

They still get high, though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you have a commercial drivers license, you are also on random drug testing. Furthermore, drug testing is mandatory following an accident for anybody in that category. I would guess that in the case of pilots, the testing is much harder after most accidents.

So, is it justified? That's a bit hard to say. I think the rules regulating driving times are at least as significant in cutting down on the rate of big rig accidents, but when you consider the amount of momentum those trucks have, you certainly don't want the drivers to be impaired in any way.

When I was an active driver, I started out on a very non-random testing program. For some reason, my name was drawn EVERY time until my boss finally complained about it. It was kind of a funny situation, as there are strict rules about how the testing has to take place: My boss has to schedule the test for a day when I am working, and from the time he informed me of the test, I had a fixed amount of time to show up at the testing facility. That was pretty hard on us, as we tended to be traveling for weeks on end, so he had to arrange the tests for days when we were back at the office. However, since we were working very long days, I tended to be taking time off when I got back to the office, so he had to make a totally unnatural phone call to me in the morning to confirm whether I would be at the office that day. It didn't really matter, since the hardest drug I take is aspirin, but I learned pretty quickly that if he called to ask if I would be in, I had best be in and ready to piss in a bottle.

[dbasnett]

Long ago in a galaxy... I was in the Navy and had a clearance. We were subject to drug testing. I wonder if our elected officials are subject to drug testing?

It is a slippery slope. What price for freedom and liberty? If you stop and think about it, wouldn't the world be great if everyone hadn't the same viewpoint as you? I have to remind myself continuously that 'they' might be right.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wonder if our elected officials are subject to drug testing?

Why bother testing for a given? After all, how else can you explain some of the things they say.

[baja_yu]

After all, how else can you explain some of the things they say.

Stupidity?

[dbasnett]

Why bother testing for a given? After all, how else can you explain some of the things they say.

Maybe they should use drugs. At least they would have an excuse then.

[ahmedkhairy]

this is really a joke .. like I can let you eat but I wont give you food :P

[honeybee]

Well, didn't the first amendment promise you free speech? I bet even if you were jailed, you would still be able to say what you want. So I don't see how the first amendment is being violated.

.

[Nightwalker83]

On the news today, I heard that the Australian Prime Minister Ronald McDonald was going to do the same thing.