• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Where in the constitution do peolpe get Freedom of speech as a right?

F

FallingPianos

assuming that rights are granted by the state rather than inherent, i'd agree. The constitution says that the congress cannot pass laws to prohibit free speech, it doesnt say anything about stopping other bodies that may prohibit you from speaking freely.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,751
Reaction score
75,507
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
star2589 said:
assuming that rights are granted by the state rather than inherent, i'd agree. The constitution says that the congress cannot pass laws to prohibit free speech, it doesnt say anything about stopping other bodies that may prohibit you from speaking freely.

right you are so if your country club bans you from its tennis courts for wearing a NAZI PUNKS F OFF t-shirt that is not a constitutional issue. IF your private catholic girls school sends you home for wearing a GOTH style crucifix or torn fishnets under your hiked up too high kilt, that isn't a constitutional violation of your right to free expression. In some cases a federal agent may limit your speech-try holding a conversation on a cell phone in the back of a federal courtroom while the judge is presiding over a trial:mrgreen:
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The First Amendment recognizes our right to free speech by prohibiting Congress from writing laws that restrict free speech. The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes that the rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged by lower legislative bodies so state legislatures and even city councils cannot legislate against free speech.

There is nothing in the Constitution that contradicts anything above.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Narph said:
No where in the constitution does it say freedom of speech is a right.
I hear people say that the first amendment to the constitution is the right to freedom of speech, but if you read it there is no mention of such a right.
All that amendment says is that the congress shall not make a law that tuches that subject. I suppose people see what they want to see though. Please before you post read the amendment and think about what it says. Look carefully at the "Congress shall make no law" Part.
Amendment I
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.
The Constitution, correctly, assumes that all rights pre-exist said constitution, and so rather than granting any such rights, the Constitution protects them from the government acting against them.

Your rights to life, liberty, property and self-determination are natural rights, inherent in you being a person -- they arent granted by any government.
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
faithful_servant said:
The basis for my great state's Constitution is the US Constitution, as is every state's.
Not so. Several state constitutions pre-date the US Constitution, and in fact many things found in the US Constitution were drawn from several of those state Constitutions.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Narph said:
To jamesrage

I think you missed the point of what I am saying or you misunderstand the constitution. This amendment only applies to the Federal congress not the states. So it only prevents the Federal government from abridging the freedom of speech not the states. So if a state made a law that took away your right of freedom of speech the constitution does not prevent it. Sure modern day judges who I don't think have even read the constitution would say it does prevent them but if you read the plain English of the first amendment it does not.
The 14th amendment's equal protection clause ushered in an era of incorporation of the Constitution upon the states.
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Narph said:
No where in the constitution does it say freedom of speech is a right.
I hear people say that the first amendment to the constitution is the right to freedom of speech, but if you read it there is no mention of such a right.
All that amendment says is that the congress shall not make a law that tuches that subject. I suppose people see what they want to see though. Please before you post read the amendment and think about what it says. Look carefully at the "Congress shall make no law" Part.


Amendment I
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.

I am sorry but you are a remarkably dull person. Since it is against the law to adridge the freedom of speech, it is right whether it you think so or not.
The Whole section is traditionally called the Bill Of Rights
Yet is does not specifically call it a right. Since you can't change the , freedom of speech, Reiligion, the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Freedom of Speech is a right by default. Only a right wing radical would want to destroy the Constitution.
:eek: :eek:

What do the right wing radical want to call our new country after destroying the Constitution? How about Exxonia, The Slavery Republic, or maybe the United Corporations of America.

Bush, when he was inaugerated, swore to up hold the constitution, He was not given the choice of to up hold or not up hold a particular section, or not follow a particular law because it hurt his little feelings. Bush and Cheney at their inaugerations lied to America. They were criminal from the first day they were sworn in.:rofl
 
Last edited:

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Only the right-wing conservatives want to destroy the Constitution? Not the left-wing liberals? Radicals all find the Constitution restricting.
 

AmericaTheLiberal

New member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
Philadelphia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I am surprised to see that people need their rights spelled out to them on a piece of paper before they'll accept them.

I'm alive, therefore I am free to speak as I wish. Until I am dead, or my voice box is ripped out or my fingers are cut off, I will speak as I choose.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To jamesrage

I think you missed the point of what I am saying or you misunderstand the constitution. This amendment only applies to the Federal congress not the states. So it only prevents the Federal government from abridging the freedom of speech not the states. So if a state made a law that took away your right of freedom of speech the constitution does not prevent it. Sure modern day judges who I don't think have even read the constitution would say it does prevent them but if you read the plain English of the first amendment it does not.
The 14th Amendment prevents states from impinging on any federally protected rights as well.
 

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
332
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Figments Of Imagination

"Figments Of Imagination"
A clever Natural Law observation.
What you see in the First Amendment is a restriction laid upon the government, not the establishment of the right to speak freely.
The right to free speech itself is not established in the Constitution. The right itself is established by God, and conferred upon each individual by God upon that individual’s creation.
In effect, there is no Constitutional basis for the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, etc. All these are perceived to already exist per a common understanding of Natural Law
Also, the preamble of the Constitution tells us that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty". Well, who is to say that this alleged "liberty" exists in the first place, let alone that this unproven "liberty" issues "blessings"? That's simply a matter of opinion, don't you think?
Heh, what tangible, Objective, verifiable scientific evidence did our founding fathers have that this so-called "liberty" existed? They told each other that it existed, so at best it's a 'because-I-say-so-postulation'; and based on what? Religion! That's what! Be it a personal abstract belief or opinion, or an official orthodoxy.
So at worst governmental endorsement of this alleged "liberty" violates the Wall of Separation.
Okay, I had my fun, back to cleaning the house....
Natural law is and shall forever remain moral relativism, or collectively social darwinism. It should be referred to as natural lawlessness.
There is no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is an objective, to be accomplished if possible.

Rights are established by the law instituted by social contract figuratively enforced as government. The social contract of libertarianism is the self evident ideals to which the forefathers referred to as liberty.

Natural law references are misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and misdirections of self ordained fluff.

This is a link to the naturalistic fallacy.

This is a link to the Is-Ought Problem.

This is a link to Inalienable Criticisms.
 
Top Bottom