Interesting concept lately from a significant number of people in the US right now is that the constitution only protects you from the government. Like the whole free speech comment earlier in this thread. Let's have a person, large groups of people or corporations decide if you are "accountable" for things you say. You know, words are violence. It's a great loophole to get around a founding principal that those rights. That principal is that those rights are intrinsic and, when trampled upon, you, as a human, are being oppressed AND you have the right to ask the government for relief when that right is infringed or diminished. 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. Quick deduction: If Congress can make no law..., why would any other entity be able to abridge freedom of speech without the same rights applying to an individual? Would that not be a grievance for the government to redress? Instead the government is enabling that exact behavior from private entities, all while repeating, "they can do what they want to". Can they, though? One has to apply a lot of other facts and intents of the words of our Bill of Rights, like supporting documents and understanding WHY these brilliant men wrote those words in the first place. Government defined: the governing body of a nation, state, or community. When corporate powers begin exercising real power over a populace, (nation, state or community) they in effect become a governing body of sorts. Banks can "de-bank" you. Stores can deny you goods and services (unless you make cakes in Colorado) or even entry without the proper documentation of "health". You see where I'm going. The role of government as we understand it in this country is to provide for us the ability to pursue life and happiness and protect us from anything that deprives us of a reasonably fair existence or our intrinsic, god given rights. Would this not include private businesses, individuals, or even shop owners? We have non-discrimination laws right? This is lost in many respects now. The effort to circumvent the pesky old document are real and when we start saying someone hurt our feelings with words, so we shall ensure he cannot live a peaceful and productive life, it runs directly counter to the founding principles of this country. Just some bored thoughts. I'm sure I'm probably leaving out some things that will quickly be pointed out, but this isn't exactly a graded essay and I ain't no Constitutional scholar.
You might be right, my tune may change also. Until any of us are in that situation can we really say how we would act? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, we can't. The loss of a child has ruined a lot of survivors lives. It has to be one of the most difficult things anyone can possibly face. I pray that none of us ever have to find out.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/lab-playing-fire-creates-hybrid-28271214 Funding source? I’ll let you guess one of the execs…
Ridge this was a great read, I have since a college class looked at the Bill of Rights in this simple way. As an American, I have the right to be left alone. Unlike most here, I have no idea what the founders were thinking when they drafted the constitution or bill of rights. Does an individual have the right to lie or slander the reputation of a person? Does a person have the right to profit from a lie/slander about your person/family? What is the line an individual crosses with free speech about a person/family where one can take action?
Unlike most here, I have no idea what the founders were thinking when they drafted the constitution or bill of rights. Predictable response.
Regressing a bit, but there are laws that cover the things you are talking about and one should expect equal treatment under those law as well. I get that you're trying to tie my comments back into your stance about Alex Jones here and that's fine. Just don't try to conflate the two subjectss. As stated before he was ruled against by a judge. I don't agree that the judgement was fair and I don't think he is getting equal treatment. More like a partisan example carried out by the judicial branch. Does that seem right to you? Anyway I was just throwing out some thoughts about the spirit of the laws and rights of your free speech in this country. And you admit since your higher learning days you haven't looked at the subject so simply. I think that is unfortunate. I'm willing to move on here. So if you'll excuse me, I'm on vacation and plan to fish later today. I totally plan to slander some fish while I'm at it.
Last I checked it’s a free country, slander away on the fish and have fun day. Thanks for a good discussion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
