While the first amendment might not protect us from each other, it serves as a good model for how we should behave. People will say and do stupid stuff (and should be willing to bear the consequences that follow) but punishing speech is a slippery slope. Love the eternal wisdom of Jeff Spicoli. :-)
You quote the first amendment and then you immediately write something inconsistent: "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." This is an amendment focused on what CONGRESS is NOT allowed to do. You then quickly state that this amendment "establishes that, above all else, individuals have the right to speak their mind." That is just completely wrong. If a company wants to fire somebody because the boss does not like what an employee said, the First Amendment goes out of its way to make sure that it is not getting involved with shit like that. I can sue my boss for firing me because I called him a dickhead, but I cannot invoke my First Amendment rights during the trial because Congress had nothing to do with anything relevant to the case. If you hate this comment I am writing right now so you block me from ever seeing your essays again, that would suck but, the First Amendment ain't gonna touch your decision. Canceling people for what they say is only a problem if Congress does it. That is what the First Amendment says. I hate Trump more than you do but when he uses his powers to destroy the lives of people for saying bad things about him, it would never occur to me to reference the First Amendment to denounce his dickhead behavior.
You make really good points about the first amendment being a restriction on Congress but your last point confuses me. If the President's proper role to protect and defend the constitution by executing the laws passed by congress. How can the President use his power to "to destroy the lives of people saying bad things about him" not be a violation the first amendment? Are you arguing that only congress is bound by the constitution?
I believe that Presidential power has grown way past the point our founding fathers envisioned but I don't believe it should extend this far. Open to your thoughts.
First, we are totally aligned ethically and morally regarding the president's behavior. But yes, I am "arguing" that only Congress is bound by the First Amendment. You wrote "Are you arguing that only congress is bound by the constitution?" which would be a ridiculous position for me to take. Why did you change the context from a narrow focus on the First Amendment to the entire breadth of the Constitution? --- Presidential power is spinning out of control because Congress has become impotent and the Supreme Court contains four Trump sycophants. The founding fathers definitely anticipated an out of control president who wanted to be a king but they never anticipated that the counter-balances would all fail to use their powers and responsibilities at the same time. Trump cannot be impeached because Congress won't go there and he can't be brought down by the courts because the Supreme Court says he has total immunity for actions taken while president. Those are my thoughts. Thank you for asking.
I completely agree on your points about too much power being centralized in the executive branch and the lack of adequate checks and balances. That has been the case for quite some time. Congress has given way too much authority to the executive branch. I hope that congress will reassert itself in the near future.
I'm not a constitutional scholar but I think (hope) the constitution limits all branches of government, not just congress. I'm have to ask AI :-)
Anyway, I believe Paul's point was any government suppression of free speech is a concerning violation of the first amendment. Thanks!
“I’m here and you’re here. Doesn’t that make it our time?”
Great article Paul.
While the first amendment might not protect us from each other, it serves as a good model for how we should behave. People will say and do stupid stuff (and should be willing to bear the consequences that follow) but punishing speech is a slippery slope. Love the eternal wisdom of Jeff Spicoli. :-)
Spicoli was a philosopher
Jimmy Kimmel's constant railing of the right simply became old and unfunny. His ratings were down 43%. Those that were watching turned the channel.
And Mr Hand is still a dick!
You're right that Kimmel's ratings were way down, which made him easier to cancel. Same with Colbert. I haven't watched either in a long time.
Net: I miss David Letterman.
Stupid pet tricks!!
The Carson reruns are great too. Lots of plaid, cigarettes, and boozed up guests.
i shared this a few weeks ago...
https://www.facebook.com/oastories/videos/993980116034949
Very close Jeff (I mean Paul)
You quote the first amendment and then you immediately write something inconsistent: "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." This is an amendment focused on what CONGRESS is NOT allowed to do. You then quickly state that this amendment "establishes that, above all else, individuals have the right to speak their mind." That is just completely wrong. If a company wants to fire somebody because the boss does not like what an employee said, the First Amendment goes out of its way to make sure that it is not getting involved with shit like that. I can sue my boss for firing me because I called him a dickhead, but I cannot invoke my First Amendment rights during the trial because Congress had nothing to do with anything relevant to the case. If you hate this comment I am writing right now so you block me from ever seeing your essays again, that would suck but, the First Amendment ain't gonna touch your decision. Canceling people for what they say is only a problem if Congress does it. That is what the First Amendment says. I hate Trump more than you do but when he uses his powers to destroy the lives of people for saying bad things about him, it would never occur to me to reference the First Amendment to denounce his dickhead behavior.
Mark,
You make really good points about the first amendment being a restriction on Congress but your last point confuses me. If the President's proper role to protect and defend the constitution by executing the laws passed by congress. How can the President use his power to "to destroy the lives of people saying bad things about him" not be a violation the first amendment? Are you arguing that only congress is bound by the constitution?
I believe that Presidential power has grown way past the point our founding fathers envisioned but I don't believe it should extend this far. Open to your thoughts.
First, we are totally aligned ethically and morally regarding the president's behavior. But yes, I am "arguing" that only Congress is bound by the First Amendment. You wrote "Are you arguing that only congress is bound by the constitution?" which would be a ridiculous position for me to take. Why did you change the context from a narrow focus on the First Amendment to the entire breadth of the Constitution? --- Presidential power is spinning out of control because Congress has become impotent and the Supreme Court contains four Trump sycophants. The founding fathers definitely anticipated an out of control president who wanted to be a king but they never anticipated that the counter-balances would all fail to use their powers and responsibilities at the same time. Trump cannot be impeached because Congress won't go there and he can't be brought down by the courts because the Supreme Court says he has total immunity for actions taken while president. Those are my thoughts. Thank you for asking.
I completely agree on your points about too much power being centralized in the executive branch and the lack of adequate checks and balances. That has been the case for quite some time. Congress has given way too much authority to the executive branch. I hope that congress will reassert itself in the near future.
I'm not a constitutional scholar but I think (hope) the constitution limits all branches of government, not just congress. I'm have to ask AI :-)
Anyway, I believe Paul's point was any government suppression of free speech is a concerning violation of the first amendment. Thanks!