Why are liberals so passionate about protecting the 1st amendment

[Murphy]

...but want to censor and limit as much as they can the second amendment?? Just curious. Because there is no asterisk on the second one which says you can censor it.

[Extra Stout]

Well, not that you really care, but...

Liberals read the 2nd Amendment to say that the reasons for citizens' keeping and bearing arms is so that they can participate in the local militia.

Since we have the Armed Forces and the National Guard, the local militia is obsolete and therefore so is the 2nd Amendment.

At least that's how liberals read it.

[Yonivore]

...but want to censor and limit as much as they can the second amendment?? Just curious. Because there is no asterisk on the second one which says you can censor it.
And, they're only passionate about the first amendment when it involves the free speech and association rights of liberals. Just ask any conservative that has ever tried to speak on a liberal university campus.

[JoeChalupa]

And, they're only passionate about the first amendment when it involves the free speech and association rights of liberals. Just ask any conservative that has ever tried to speak on a liberal university campus.

or a liberal who wants to speak out against Bush. :rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

And, they're only passionate about the first amendment when it involves the free speech and association rights of liberals. Just ask any conservative that has ever tried to speak on a liberal university campus.
Thats fucking ridiculous.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Yeah that really is, I dont know a single liberal who would say that conservaitves shouldn't have the right to say something, we just have pies ready for them once they do.

[Vashner]

Well it's important because people in power without anything to watch them. Will abuse the situation. Even i'll agree that the media plays a very important role watching whoever is in power. I do think that if they find out some classified info they should report it to law enforcement. Not print it.

A free press is a benchmark of a free society. They may be a cabal of jerks that want to bring down the administration .. but it's there right to oppose with peace.

Don't worry we are watching them too.. Lot of the radicals on the left can't even take a poop without it being logged somewhere or on camera.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just ask any conservative that has ever tried to speak on a liberal university campus.

You mean all of the STATE universities that exercise some form of viewpoint discrimination, right? Unless a university receives some portion of its funding from the State, the Constitution is inapplicable on campus, just as it is inapplicable on FoxNews or in the Washington Times.

[Vashner]

I would also add.. one of the reasons that the majority of Iraq's are somewhat tolerant of US presence.. is the free press we have allowed them to have. Trust me there are people there that can finally just print what they want to say, well you know non call to violence printings.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah that really is, I dont know a single liberal who would say that conservaitves shouldn't have the right to say something, we just have pies ready for them once they do.

Congrats on making your opponent's point.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Murphy used to be liberal, now hes totally changed

[FromWayDowntown]

The premise of the thread is flawed, since the two amendments are written in very different ways.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." By contrast, the Second Amendment is far different, providing: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The argument makes sense if the Second Amendment read: "A well regulated Militia . . . . Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to bear arms." That, however, is not what the Second Amendment says.

The Second Amendment doesn't contemplate an all-out ban on any legislation concerning gun ownership or use. Instead, it simply says that Congress cannot prohibit you from keeping or bearing any arms. In other words, you have the fundamental right to own a gun, but it by no means says that you have the right to own any gun that you want or any number of guns that you choose. The "right to bear arms" is not infringed so long as there is no law prohibiting gun ownership. That is all the Second Amendment compels. (obviously, even that is not an absolute, since certain groups of people are prohibited from owning firearms).

Why is it that when the right wishes to bash decisions it dislikes, it argues that the language means what it says, but when it doesn't like the textual result, it argues that the language has to be read differently than written?

[Yonivore]

or a liberal who wants to speak out against Bush. :rolleyes
Really? You mean like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Bill Moyers, and a thousand others who have free reign on the University circuit?

Give me an example where a liberal speaker was shouted down or physically assaulted on a University Campus anywhere in the United States over the past 5 years.

[FromWayDowntown]

Really? You mean like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Bill Moyers, and a thousand others who have free reign on the University circuit?

Give me an example where a liberal speaker was shouted down or physically assaulted on a University Campus anywhere in the United States over the past 5 years.

Yes. I think Universities should organize gangs of students to attack liberal speakers, just to keep up the appearance of fairness.

That, or compel students to support conservative speakers on college campuses, without regard to any genuine agreement with the speaker's viewpoint.

[Marcus Bryant]

The premise of the thread is flawed, since the two amendments are written in very different ways.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." By contrast, the Second Amendment is far different, providing: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The argument makes sense if the Second Amendment read: "A well regulated Militia . . . . Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to bear arms." That, however, is not what the Second Amendment says.



Well, textualism depends on how one comprehends what is written. The 2nd amendment could quite reasonably be read as...



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

...being the preamble, one of the main reasons why arms ownership is important, because you want men familiar with the use of arms in order to provide for the common defense. It's certainly not the only reason why the use of arms would have value, since no doubt hunting and personal defense would be quite valid reasons.



"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...which gives you the limitation on congressional action.

[Yonivore]

Once again, I was listening to Air America last Friday -- during the afternoon or evening "Minority Report" show and (this is telling on the state of Air America as well) the host took two calls in a row that had to do with with programmring.

The first, dealt with the possible demise of the "Morning Sedition" show and the host of the "Minority Report" had to be reassured by his producer that the "Morning Sedition" show would be continued but that there were "changes" in the works.

Then, he took a call from an old lady complaining that the Randi Rhoades show was being followed by a "bible thumper" in some market (I forget what city) and the host of the "Minority Report" said that was unacceptable and that such programming was not welcome on Air America and that he would check into.

Doesn't sound very tolerant to me... Why not let market forces decide what airs in that market?

[FromWayDowntown]

Once again, I was listening to Air America last Friday -- during the afternoon or evening "Minority Report" show and (this is telling on the state of Air America as well) the host took two calls in a row that had to do with with programmring.

The first, dealt with the possible demise of the "Morning Sedition" show and the host of the "Minority Report" had to be reassured by his producer that the "Morning Sedition" show would be continued but that there were "changes" in the works.

Then, he took a call from an old lady complaining that the Randi Rhoades show was being followed by a "bible thumper" in some market (I forget what city) and the host of the "Minority Report" said that was unacceptable and that such programming was not welcome on Air America and that he would check into.

Doesn't sound very tolerant to me... Why not let market forces decide what airs in that market?

Market forces will decide what airs. If Air America chooses to demand that shows with other viewpoints be taken off the air as a condition to airing its programming, local affiliates will either adhere and cancel the other programming or resist and lose Air America. If the network is in the sort of bad shape that you seem to revel in, there should be no problem for you, since Air America will be unlikely to dictate programming terms to its affiliates. If Air America is strong enough to compel its affiliates to change the programming, the market will dictate whether that change is successful or not. People will vote with their radios.

[Yonivore]

You mean all of the STATE universities that exercise some form of viewpoint discrimination, right? Unless a university receives some portion of its funding from the State, the Constitution is inapplicable on campus, just as it is inapplicable on FoxNews or in the Washington Times.
Well, I was particularly thinking of the University of Texas at Austin where I know of at least two conservative speakers who were successfully shouted down or where liberal protests resulted in the cancellation of a speaking engagement at the LBJ school of Public Affairs.

Last time I checked, they were a state supported school.

I can't think of an instance where the same has occurred for a liberal speaker.

[mookie2001]

I'm as liberal as you can get
and against gun control in every way

[Yonivore]

Yes. I think Universities should organize gangs of students to attack liberal speakers, just to keep up the appearance of fairness.
They certainly support and encourage liberal gangs of students to do just that.


That, or compel students to support conservative speakers on college campuses, without regard to any genuine agreement with the speaker's viewpoint.
How 'bout just prohibit students from interfering with said events. Conservative students don't seem to have a problem controlling themselves most of the time...I don't know why it is such a difficult task for liberals.

[Yonivore]

Market forces will decide what airs. If Air America chooses to demand that shows with other viewpoints be taken off the air as a condition to airing its programming, local affiliates will either adhere and cancel the other programming or resist and lose Air America. If the network is in the sort of bad shape that you seem to revel in, there should be no problem for you, since Air America will be unlikely to dictate programming terms to its affiliates. If Air America is strong enough to compel its affiliates to change the programming, the market will dictate whether that change is successful or not. People will vote with their radios.
I was just talking about the free speech tolerance of the Left. I completely agree with what you said.

[Yonivore]

I'm as liberal as you can get
and against gun control in every way
Except, of course, where it pertains to target acquisition and execution.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, textualism depends on how one comprehends what is written. The 2nd amendment could quite reasonably be read as...




...being the preamble, one of the main reasons why arms ownership is important, because you want men familiar with the use of arms in order to provide for the common defense. It's certainly not the only reason why the use of arms would have value, since no doubt hunting and personal defense would be quite valid reasons.




...which gives you the limitation on congressional action.

I think that if the Framers intended to absolutely prohibit Congress from making any law limiting gun ownership, the Second Amendment would be written in a form similar to that used in the First. That isn't how the Second Amendment is written, though.

[mookie2001]

^no
I'm not against every war either
Just this bullshit one
I think we have to leave the bill of rights alone

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, I was particularly thinking of the University of Texas at Austin where I know of at least two conservative speakers who were successfully shouted down or where liberal protests resulted in the cancellation of a speaking engagement at the LBJ school of Public Affairs.

Last time I checked, they were a state supported school.

I can't think of an instance where the same has occurred for a liberal speaker.

I had presumed that you meant Universities that simply refused to schedule conservative speakers to appear on campus.

Knowing what you're talking about, though, I have to say that there is a marked difference between students shouting down a speaker they disagree with and a University engaging in viewpoint discrimination against Conservatives, as you initially posited.

When students act and protest with sufficient effect to shut down a speaking engagement, there is no state action -- in fact, if the University stopped protests that are simply vocal protests and do not violate any University rules of conduct, the University would violate the First Amendment rights of the protesting students.

If liberal speakers aren't shouted down, perhaps conservative students should reconsider their tactics. If liberal students choose to be uncouth and happen to be successful in that effort, it doesn't make the University a viewpoint discriminator -- it perhaps evidences the majority belief on campus (in the same way that an election result evidences the majority belief in a district).

[Marcus Bryant]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This is another amendment with a preamble, as in the ideal stated first, followed by the way the 'goal' will be reached.

[Yonivore]

I had presumed that you meant Universities that simply refused to schedule conservative speakers to appear on campus.

Knowing what you're talking about, though, I have to say that there is a marked difference between students shouting down a speaker they disagree with and a University engaging in viewpoint discrimination against Conservatives, as you initially posited.

When students act and protest with sufficient effect to shut down a speaking engagement, there is no state action -- in fact, if the University stopped protests that are simply vocal protests and do not violate any University rules of conduct, the University would violate the First Amendment rights of the protesting students.

If liberal speakers aren't shouted down, perhaps conservative students should reconsider their tactics. If liberal students choose to be uncouth and happen to be successful in that effort, it doesn't make the University a viewpoint discriminator -- it perhaps evidences the majority belief on campus (in the same way that an election result evidences the majority belief in a district).
So, basically, you're saying that conservatives should just be less civil?

And, your initial impression was correct, I believe some state-supported universities engage in viewpoint discrimination.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, basically, you're saying that conservatives should just be less civil?

And, your initial impression was correct, I believe some state-supported universities engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Not at all. I'm just saying that free speech works both ways. If liberals are able to push conservative speakers off campus, then either their means for resisting particular speakers are working ,or their viewpoint is prevailing on campus; perhaps both. In any event, conservative speakers who enter onto college campuses can't expect (nor should they expect) to exist in a coccoon, removed and protected from the various political viewpoints that college students have.

You seem to posit that the speakers should somehow be immunized from any possibility that they will be met with resistance. I'm saying that such a concept is anathema to the notion of free speech -- much more problematic to me than a concern about speakers with particular viewpoints being shouted down.

Now, of course, on a private college campus, or at a private organization's event, there can be no such concerns about free speech, and perhaps that is the solution to the problem that concerns you. But on the campus of a public university (or a university that receives state funding), conservative students who dislike the way their speakers are being treated have at their disposal the means to fight back. Their refusal to exercise those means is not a free speech problem.

[Yonivore]

Not at all. I'm just saying that free speech works both ways. If liberals are able to push conservative speakers off campus, then either their means for resisting particular speakers are working ,or their viewpoint is prevailing on campus; perhaps both. In any event, conservative speakers who enter onto college campuses can't expect (nor should they expect) to exist in a coccoon, removed and protected from the various political viewpoints that college students have.

You seem to posit that the speakers should somehow be immunized from any possibility that they will be met with resistance. I'm saying that such a concept is anathema to the notion of free speech -- much more problematic to me than a concern about speakers with particular viewpoints being shouted down.

Now, of course, on a private college campus, or at a private organization's event, there can be no such concerns about free speech, and perhaps that is the solution to the problem that concerns you. But on the campus of a public university (or a university that receives state funding), conservative students who dislike the way their speakers are being treated have at their disposal the means to fight back. Their refusal to exercise those means is not a free speech problem.
They should be protected form assault and disorderly conduct...which are the tactics I oppose. I have no problem with placards, leaflets, or even vocal protests -- outside a venue. But, once you disrupt a function with repeated epithets or antics or once you physically assault someone, the party's over.

[FromWayDowntown]

They should be protected form assault and disorderly conduct...which are the tactics I oppose. I have no problem with placards, leaflets, or even vocal protests -- outside a venue. But, once you disrupt a function with repeated epithets or antics or once you physically assault someone, the party's over.

If they are physically assaulting speakers or other students, they should be arrested and disciplined. That isn't just a university matter -- if there are assaults taking place, the local police should be brought in to arrest the offenders. If there are reports that students are physically assaulting speakers, I'd be curious to read those reports.

But if they're just being loud and obnoxious -- even to the point of shouting epithets -- they're simply expressing a viewpoint; the University should not do anything about that unless what's done and said violates a written university policy.

Students disrupting a function is rude of the students, but it's not viewpoint discrimination on the part of the university.

[Yonivore]

Students disrupting a function is rude of the students, but it's not viewpoint discrimination on the part of the university.
That depends on if the University uniformly allows or disallows such "speech."

[FromWayDowntown]

That depends on if the University uniformly allows or disallows such "speech."

So are you suggesting that universities allow liberal students to shout down conservative speakers, but don't afford the same opportunity to conservative students vis a vis liberal speakers? If that's the point and there's some proof of that happening, I'd generally agree (though I must say that as an alumnus of an upper-tier, private, Eastern university -- and one who was involved with conservative organizations on a campus that leans heavily to the left -- I'm also familiar with concocted stories of mistreatment by groups seeking publicity for otherwise poorly-attended events) with you.

Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.

[Ocotillo]

Someone's actually believing Horowitz.

[Das Texan]

You mean all of the STATE universities that exercise some form of viewpoint discrimination, right? Unless a university receives some portion of its funding from the State, the Constitution is inapplicable on campus, just as it is inapplicable on FoxNews or in the Washington Times.

almost every university recieves some federal funding in some way, shape or form these days.