Why do Republicans hate the 1st Amendment?

[Cope]

I did. Did you actually read my post you quoted?

That was yesterday! I've slept since then, perhaps I was agreeing with you?

Where is our argument?

 

[Cope]

And, as I said in my post - "didn't stick to those things" where? The where is the first important bit.

In all instances? Gosh, I simply do not have that information. Are you willing to defend the ones showing Kirks death on video, on repeat?
If not, then there is a line to be drawn somewhere. But it (espousing political positions/being partisan) CLEARLY isn't all or even partially covered under the 1st amendment if done at work, as a government employee.

And then AFTER that, we have what any employer would want, appropriate speech at appropriate times or punishment can be meted out.

 

[Airyaman]

As I was saying...

This thread held up well, doncha think?

It's obvious MAGA Republicans hate free speech.

 

[Fletch]

MAGA doesn't even care about Charlie Kirk. MAGA is just raping another tragedy in order to attack the left.

- When a MAGA is the shooter, they say "just one lone nut".

- When the victims are schoolchildren, they say "thoughts and prayers. Ok, now move on".

- When the victims are schoolchildren, they mock the left for wanting better gun control and mental health services.

- When the victims are schoolchildren, they say "those kids' lives are a sacrifice I'm willing to make for my gun collection".

- When the victims were Democrats Melissa and Mark Hortman, they say "they deserved it for being liberals".



But when the victim is a MAGA, they blame the entirety of the left, they threaten civil war and other violence, their Dear Leader's administration announces that it will use the machinery of government to attack anyone it deems on the left.

And you just used this story to attack the entirety of the right. Perhaps you should look around and see if there is a key somewhere to unlock the hypocrisy box you find yourself in.

 

[Bighorn66]

Again, what I posted that you call "silly tweets" was this....

"When MAGAs gain dictatorial rule over all the land and people of the USA they will torch freedom of speech on Day One. Trump brooks no criticism or critique. Zero. Neither does Miller. None of 'em do."


In other words your posts need improvement.

Let’s check the validity of this tweet.

TRUMP IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER AND I WANT HIM IMPEACHED.

I’ll check tomorrow and see is my freedom of speech has been “torched.”

 

[NotreDame]

The next question is: Is it 'discipline' to not fund something? I'd lean no.

Hmmm…rather inartful phrasing. The 1st Am free speech clause exists to preclude the government from “disciplining” people for their speech.

 

[NotreDame]

Who decides 'unfair'? I think that is the gist.

As I usually come down on things like this, I would need to look at individual cases. In matters where there are multiple instances at the same place, and they were determined to be actionable, then yes, I would withhold funding until they cleaned up their own kitchen.

I think the discipline is done at the point of contact (Loss of job, put on leave etc), funding or withholding funding is not a right, it is a privilege that can (and is) pulled , likely for all manner of reasons. We saw this with PBS (did we not?)

funding or withholding funding is not a right, it is a privilege that can (and is) pulled , likely for all manner of reasons.

What this ignores is the salient issue of can the government, having already allocated funding, rescind or threaten to rescind the funding based upon the content of speech they dislike under the 1st Amendment free speech clause?

Your logic says “yes” but I’m incredulous as there is a No Viewpoint and No Content discrimination aspect to the 1st Amendment free speech clause.

Here, the implication is unequivocal, all teacher speech memorializing Kirk positively, you keep the funding we’ve disbursed or intended to, but those speaking negatively of Kirk then you deserve no further funding already allocated for you and will cancel the present funding.

 

[hooligan]

In all instances? Gosh, I simply do not have that information. Are you willing to defend the ones showing Kirks death on video, on repeat?
If not, then there is a line to be drawn somewhere. But it (espousing political positions/being partisan) CLEARLY isn't all or even partially covered under the 1st amendment if done at work, as a government employee.

And then AFTER that, we have what any employer would want, appropriate speech at appropriate times or punishment can be meted out.

Precisely. Hence my question about where.

Also, I haven't "defended" anyone, yet.

I'll repeat, since you seem to have forgotten this part, also:

Should they be doing any of that in the classroom? Absolutely not.

 

[Cope]

Hmmm…rather inartful phrasing. The 1st Am free speech clause exists to preclude the government from “disciplining” people for their speech.

It was. However my point remains unchanged. Is it disciplining to simply not allow funding for something?
Could it be? Certainly.

But is it the expectation that funding is untouched no matter what people do, or choose.

I'd still say no, that expectation should not exist.

 

[Cope]

What this ignores is the salient issue of can the government, having already allocated funding, rescind or threaten to rescind the funding based upon the content of speech they dislike under the 1st Amendment free speech clause?

Your logic says “yes” but I’m incredulous as there is a No Viewpoint and No Content discrimination aspect to the 1st Amendment free speech clause.

Here, the implication is unequivocal, all teacher speech memorializing Kirk positively, you keep the funding we’ve disbursed or intended to, but those speaking negatively of Kirk then you deserve no further funding already allocated for you and will cancel the present funding.

I think this all speaks to a broader issue.

Once funded, by a different administration. When the new administration changes course, and wants different things, who is to say they cannot?
Funding and allocation very rarely happens where they itemize the funds. Maybe they should?

 

[Cope]

Precisely. Hence my question about where.

Also, I haven't "defended" anyone, yet.

I'll repeat, since you seem to have forgotten this part, also:

I didn't forget it. I agreed with you.

But you haven't relinquished the search for a broader definition, when there simply isn't one without looking at each individual case.

 

[hooligan]

I didn't forget it. I agreed with you.

But you haven't relinquished the search for a broader definition, when there simply isn't one without looking at each individual case.

A broader definition of what?

All I said was where this activity happened is the first important bit of information in order to provide a remotely educated opinion on whether it was "right" or "wrong".

Should we not be "looking at each individual case"? If not, why?

 

[Michael Cole]

Why do Democrats build straw-men?

Bizarre. Are you in the right thread? The OP mentions no Democrats. The OP contains no strawman.

 

[Cope]

A broader definition of what?

All I said was where this activity happened is the first important bit of information in order to provide a remotely educated opinion on whether it was "right" or "wrong".

Should we not be "looking at each individual case"? If not, why?

A broader definition of where something happens. We don't know where the line is until we see the individual acts.

And as such any defense of this issue doesn't allow you ANY nuance. Some in this thread are simply screaming 1st amendment! and nothing else. You've said that some are justifiably punished. We agree on those.

But I think this thread has reached an end, for us

 

[hooligan]

A broader definition of where something happens.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, honestly.

Where has a pretty straightforward and simple definition.

I agree with you that we need to know the details of the individual acts. I've literally been saying that all along.

 

[Tangmo]

Let’s check the validity of this tweet.

TRUMP IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER AND I WANT HIM IMPEACHED.

I’ll check tomorrow and see is my freedom of speech has been “torched.”

My god man.

I didn't say "tomorrow."

AGAIN, here's what I posted a couple of dayze ago that your posts continue to miss....

"When MAGAs gain dictatorial rule over all the land and people of the USA they will torch freedom of speech on Day One. Trump brooks no criticism or critique. Zero. Neither does Miller. None of 'em do."


Nothing about "tomorrow."


MAGA !

 

[hooligan]

And as such any defense of this issue doesn't allow you ANY nuance. Some in this thread are simply screaming 1st amendment! and nothing else. You've said that some are justifiably punished. We agree on those.

I'm not responsible for what other folks in this thread post.

I haven't defended anyone.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Conservatives are frauds. Remember the pledge to uphold the Constitution? Then they elect a president who declares emergencies to rule by executive order and circumvent the Constitution.

Christianity -- frauds
Constitution -- frauds
1st Amendment -- frauds
personal freedom -- frauds

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Bad day for teachers. The problem isn't that they're expressing their deranged opinions, rather its that we hired these idiots in the first place. No wonder why are students are getting dumber and dumber. Focus on education, not politics.

The right-wing calling other people "idiots" is really rich.

This is not a good approach for people who refer to the fifth grade as "my senior year".

 

[NotreDame]

It was. However my point remains unchanged. Is it disciplining to simply not allow funding for something?
Could it be? Certainly.

But is it the expectation that funding is untouched no matter what people do, or choose.

I'd still say no, that expectation should not exist.

But is it the expectation that funding is untouched no matter what people do, or choose.

No, such and absolute expectation is irrational and I’m not aware of anyone with this expectation.

The reasonable expectation is the federal government adheres to the protections in the BOR, including the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause.

The expection is the federal government will not, consistent with the 1st Amendment, seek to rescind money already appropriated and upon the basis because of a particular point of view the federal government or its actor disapprove.

 

[NotreDame]

I think this all speaks to a broader issue.

Once funded, by a different administration. When the new administration changes course, and wants different things, who is to say they cannot?
Funding and allocation very rarely happens where they itemize the funds. Maybe they should?

who is to say they cannot?

The application of the 1st amendment free speech clause is not administration dependent.