Does the 1st Amendment guarantee freedom of speech in a meaningful way? (1 Viewer)

[Celebrity]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

 

[joG]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

You voice would be counted and it affects the results. If Johnson gets 8 percent, say, those votes will come out of someone else's, who might win or lose because of you.
If you vote for a losing candidate, you lose. That is part of democracy.

 

[Patrickt]

"The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right."

No, it doesn't. The Constitution guarantees no such thing.

And, directly to the point of your suggestion for a new tax that would be used to give some political groups, but not others, a public forum, well, that might well be unconstitutional. You have a voice on this forum. You can collect money or even fund your own "third-party only" forum. You can without doubt promote Ms. Stein's campaign or Gov. Johnson's campaign here. You can't tax me to pay for it, though. Wouldn't Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton be excited by the idea that the King, or Queen, could levy a tax to pay for their speeches?

The First Amendment says, "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.[1]"

Now, taking out the part that pertains to free speech for those who don't actually read the Constitution we get, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." That's it. Of course, since the Constitution was written to protect us from the government the government has been violating that amendment almost since our founding. But, it really is quite clear.

But, I should touch on what it doesn't say. It doesn't say you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, or wherever you want. Trust me, if you say the wrong thing you can get fired, hear the lock on your bedroom door click shut, see your name dropped from the annual neighborhood block party, or find yourself sitting alone in the cafeteria. No there is no Constitutional protection for people like Donald Trump from other Americans. That's why, as a liberal, he wants stricter laws against free speech.

The government has decided that free speech can be abridged but even ignoring that, the Constitution does not guarantee that you can seize the podium and give a speech on private property. The government protects those who storm the podium to prevent people they disagree with from speaking and the government is wrong in doing that.

A racist group donated written material about their cause to our local library. They were thanked and their material was put in a restricted section for research purposes. They objected. Too bad. There is no guarantee the government will promote you speech either.

 

[Celebrity]

"The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right."

No, it doesn't. The Constitution guarantees no such thing.

And, directly to the point of your suggestion for a new tax that would be used to give some political groups, but not others, a public forum, well, that might well be unconstitutional.

Hold it right there. I said non-partisan because the US government is non-partisan. The administration on the other hand, is partisan and we sometimes arrange for policies that lack bi-partisan support (executive order, for example). But tax dollars are public funding. The only political groups with the power to participate will be the ones with access to an internet browser and a certain amount of processing speed.

You voice would be counted and it affects the results. If Johnson gets 8 percent, say, those votes will come out of someone else's, who might win or lose because of you.
If you vote for a losing candidate, you lose. That is part of democracy.

If you vote for the candidate who doesn't get a place at the debate, is that freedom of expression?

Your vote is your voice, and when 8% of voters choose to voice their opinion for a candidate who is silenced, freedom of speech is mitigated. Limiting speech in a certain venue is fine. When a single venue is awarded significantly more power than any other existing venue, we might call that a monopoly. The political process is that venue, and right now, it appears that it's being torn apart within the parties.

Do prisoners have freedom of speech? Yes, and the Virginia Felons Voter Association recently increased the power to include the right to vote for people who were convicted on felony charges.

The mainstream media is where free speech most publicly takes place, and it's a business. The mainstream media will therefore align itself with profitable speech, such as candidates which favor media coverage. The political process and media coverage work hand in hand, and every time the media throws a bone to some peasant, they get 15 minutes of fame and nothing happens.

Why not fund a forum in order to give the rest of the people an opportunity to speak freely, not on the basis of fame or fortune, but as a matter of principle? Think of the POTUS town hall meetings which have gained so much popularity as a seat of political power for those who get a chance to speak to the President. We can do the same thing, and we the people deserve adequate funding from a resource which we create.

 

[Patrickt]

Right. NPR is non-partisan. The IRS is non-partisan. I sometimes forget what non-partisan means in America today. The NLRB is non-partisan. The DOJ is non-partisan. The FCC is non-partisan. The FEC is non-partisan.

"If you vote for the candidate who doesn't get a place at the debate, is that freedom of expression?"

I don't vote as a means of expression. I'm voting for who I want to e president. I will tell people who I won't vote for but I really believe in a secret ballot so I don't tell anyone who I voted for.

 

[jet57]

Right. NPR is non-partisan. The IRS is non-partisan. I sometimes forget what non-partisan means in America today. The NLRB is non-partisan. The DOJ is non-partisan. The FCC is non-partisan. The FEC is non-partisan.

"If you vote for the candidate who doesn't get a place at the debate, is that freedom of expression?"

I don't vote as a means of expression. I'm voting for who I want to e president. I will tell people who I won't vote for but I really believe in a secret ballot so I don't tell anyone who I voted for.

Your "freedom of expression" comment is convoluted and what makes NPR those agencies partisan and can you prove your assertion?

 

[Captain Adverse]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

It doesn't really matter if your voice is "heard" by the establishment.

It only matters that you can express yourself openly without oppression by the establishment.

That way, if you speak openly and often enough to gain attention from your peers...the establishment will also hear you soon enough.

 

[Celebrity]

But who would grudge one cent from their fellow patriots? We live in an age where more than half of shoppers buy online. Who knows what the future holds in store for online forums? The difference between a library and the internet is: you can't talk in a library, unless you get a room. Online information is abundant and readily available.

 

[maquiscat]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

The entir premise of this post/thread is simply wrong. The first amendment isn't about whether or not your voice/opinion is heard. Freedom of Speech as a right has nothing to do with the quality or quantity of speech. The first amendment is a protection from having your speech censored by the government. Note the key words, by the government. A private broadcast company is not so restricted and can choose to censor anything they want via their broadcast equipment.

 

[joG]

Hold it right there. I said non-partisan because the US government is non-partisan. The administration on the other hand, is partisan and we sometimes arrange for policies that lack bi-partisan support (executive order, for example). But tax dollars are public funding. The only political groups with the power to participate will be the ones with access to an internet browser and a certain amount of processing speed.



If you vote for the candidate who doesn't get a place at the debate, is that freedom of expression?

Your vote is your voice, and when 8% of voters choose to voice their opinion for a candidate who is silenced, freedom of speech is mitigated. Limiting speech in a certain venue is fine. When a single venue is awarded significantly more power than any other existing venue, we might call that a monopoly. The political process is that venue, and right now, it appears that it's being torn apart within the parties.

Do prisoners have freedom of speech? Yes, and the Virginia Felons Voter Association recently increased the power to include the right to vote for people who were convicted on felony charges.

The mainstream media is where free speech most publicly takes place, and it's a business. The mainstream media will therefore align itself with profitable speech, such as candidates which favor media coverage. The political process and media coverage work hand in hand, and every time the media throws a bone to some peasant, they get 15 minutes of fame and nothing happens.

Why not fund a forum in order to give the rest of the people an opportunity to speak freely, not on the basis of fame or fortune, but as a matter of principle? Think of the POTUS town hall meetings which have gained so much popularity as a seat of political power for those who get a chance to speak to the President. We can do the same thing, and we the people deserve adequate funding from a resource which we create.

We can talk about felons and their right to vote. That they cannot speak from a box at Hyde Park Corner is sad. But is it really a point we should be worrying about right now, with so many pots boiling over?

 

[Celebrity]

The first amendment is a protection from having your speech censored by the government. Note the key words, by the government. A private broadcast company is not so restricted and can choose to censor anything they want via their broadcast equipment.

That's why I suggest the government fund a non-profit third party to run the forum. The government provides the funding, but does not censor speech on the forum.

We can talk about felons and their right to vote. That they cannot speak from a box at Hyde Park Corner is sad. But is it really a point we should be worrying about right now, with so many pots boiling over?

Are we prioritizing crises now? Yes, it matters what we do with people who may or may not have been falsely convicted and stripped of their rights. I guess that's just human error for you, the richest country in the world has the most people in prisons. Freedom of speech doesn't mean lock up the people whom you don't want to hear speak.

 

[thenotorious]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

Or you could use the 50 million other social platforms online, and save us all from a ridiculously stupidly spent 122 million dollars.

 

[Celebrity]

Or you could use the 50 million other social platforms online, and save us all from a ridiculously stupidly spent 122 million dollars.

What, you mean like the Khan Academy? That's privately funded, if I'm not mistaken.

I take it that your grudge is as symbolic as the proposed $0.01 increment of the income tax.

 

[thenotorious]

What, you mean like the Khan Academy? That's privately funded, if I'm not mistaken.

I take it that your grudge is as symbolic as the proposed $0.01 increment of the income tax.

No, my grudge is wasting money on useless personal projects such as the one you suggested, because you fail to realize the root of the problem in the first place and would prefer to throw other people's money at it to solve the problem.

Giving people an online forum isn't going to stop two sides of people bullying others to theirs, the other, or out of the political process altogether.

 

[Celebrity]

No, my grudge is wasting money on useless personal projects such as the one you suggested, because you fail to realize the root of the problem in the first place and would prefer to throw other people's money at it to solve the problem.

Giving people an online forum isn't going to stop two sides of people bullying others to theirs, the other, or out of the political process altogether.

What, you don't trust the discretionary spending of your esteemed representatives and their agencies? We already spend money for their forum, it's called 'Congress.'

Is that the people's Congress, or is it the Congress of the establishment? Are you saying that, since we pay them, they can do a better job with the money we throw at them than the average person sitting at a computer?

 

[Jane]

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

Meh. Hows about you just send your $0.01 to the powers-that-be at Debate Forums? Done.

 

[Celebrity]

Meh. Hows about you just send your $0.01 to the powers-that-be at Debate Forums? Done.

I already tried, I couldn't figure out a way to donate in cent amounts.

 

[SocialD]

The 1st Amendment guarantees that a person's right to speak freely is a protected right. But in what capacity does that right imbue citizens who speak freely? Within political process, two parties dominate the polls, television and newspaper coverage. Even if a third party candidate, such as Johnson or Stein, managed to capture a fraction of the public's attention, their platforms are commonly regarded as impotent. We call a vote for a third party a 'wasted vote.'

If voting can be wasted, I think that clearly means that people's votes aren't being counted in a representative democracy. If your vote is your voice, then that means individuals who exist outside the Democratic and Republican parties are not being heard.

I propose a symbolic, 1¢ online forum tax (that's $0.01) be added to Federal income tax. The money generated from this tax on roughly 122 million Americans would generate over $1 million in revenue - more than enough to sponsor an online forum where any citizen can participate. The forum will be open to the public, but privately held by a non-profit, third party organization. The reason for this online forum is so that an alternative political arena can be ensured by non-partisan funding.

If your voice isn't heard by the establishment, then is your voice free? Making sure that citizens are heard in a public forum is important for all of us, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.

3rd party votes aren't wasted.. unless its for president right now.
Here is the problem as I see it... voter participation is low as I'm sure we all know. that's in presidential election years... its even lower in midterm years... and most of the time even lower in state/county/city elections.
Yet 'that' is where 3rd party candidates have a decent chance. you want more 3rd party people... vote them into city, state and county positions.
as more of them have more local offices and do well it will be easier to get them into us rep positions , lead to more in senate positions and then presidency.
ive been saying this for years. it has to be more of a grassroots method.
But it requires involvement in all elections not just every 4 years.

 

[Celebrity]

3rd party votes aren't wasted.. unless its for president right now.
Here is the problem as I see it... voter participation is low as I'm sure we all know. that's in presidential election years... its even lower in midterm years... and most of the time even lower in state/county/city elections.
Yet 'that' is where 3rd party candidates have a decent chance. you want more 3rd party people... vote them into city, state and county positions.
as more of them have more local offices and do well it will be easier to get them into us rep positions , lead to more in senate positions and then presidency.
ive been saying this for years. it has to be more of a grassroots method.
But it requires involvement in all elections not just every 4 years.

It sounds like you're describing a more direct system, which would reduce the steps in the election process. The election is only one part of the political process. After officials are elected to public office, they might lose touch with the roots. Public office might be connected to society, but how interconnected is society? Decrease the number of connections and you have a self-ignorant constituency or dislocated grassroots. Grassroots works when it's plugged in, not when people have to run a campaign the same way they did in the 19th century. We saw this happen on social media.

When we formed the USA, we started a Congress. I think we should expand our availability of political arenas for any citizen, and that won't take a million dollars because not everyone will use it all the time.

Congress vs Forum - What's the difference? | the-difference-between.com

 

[SocialD]

It sounds like you're describing a more direct system, which would reduce the steps in the election process. The election is only one part of the political process. After officials are elected to public office, they might lose touch with the roots. Public office might be connected to society, but how interconnected is society? Decrease the number of connections and you have a self-ignorant constituency or dislocated grassroots. Grassroots works when it's plugged in, not when people have to run a campaign the same way they did in the 19th century. We saw this happen on social media.

When we formed the USA, we started a Congress. I think we should expand our availability of political arenas for any citizen, and that won't take a million dollars because not everyone will use it all the time.

Congress vs Forum - What's the difference? | the-difference-between.com

And you do have these kinds of local forums on a local level.

 

[Jane]

Here is the problem as I see it... voter participation is low as I'm sure we all know. that's in presidential election years... its even lower in midterm years... and most of the time even lower in state/county/city elections.

:twocents: That's why I feel voting should be mandatory, at least in federal elections, with failure to do resulting in a small fine.

 

[Celebrity]

:twocents: That's why I feel voting should be mandatory, at least in federal elections, with failure to do resulting in a small fine.

Great idea, we can force people to exercise their freedoms. Then we can make sure that people are forced to freely participate in other equal opportunities. Your vote is your voice, so we should force people to make words come out of their mouths, unless they are dumb.

 

[Thoreau72]

It doesn't really matter if your voice is "heard" by the establishment.

It only matters that you can express yourself openly without oppression by the establishment.

That way, if you speak openly and often enough to gain attention from your peers...the establishment will also hear you soon enough.

True, but where the rubber meets the road, it is ultimately up to the establishment as to whether and how it will respond to your concerns. That is where the "it's rigged" part comes in.

 

[SocialD]

:twocents: That's why I feel voting should be mandatory, at least in federal elections, with failure to do resulting in a small fine.

I guess that's a step but still you want informed voters. doing it because you have to I'm not sure solves the problem. its worth discussion though.

 

[Jane]

Great idea, we can force people to exercise their freedoms. Then we can make sure that people are forced to freely participate in other equal opportunities. Your vote is your voice, so we should force people to make words come out of their mouths, unless they are dumb.
View attachment 67205766