Can they deny the 1st Amendment right for hate speech felons?

AProudLefty

AProudLefty

Adorable how loser is screeching for attention. :)
I asked because apparently they can deny felons the 2nd Amendment right.

What provisions in the Constitution allow for that? Apparently the SCOTUS recognized them. So they can rule that felons can be denied the 1st Amendment right somewhat.

It's the same with voting.

I see nothing in the Constitution about felons.
 
AProudLefty said:
I asked because apparently they can deny felons the 2nd Amendment right.

What provisions in the Constitution allow for that? Apparently the SCOTUS recognized them. So they can rule that felons can be denied the 1st Amendment right somewhat.

It's the same with voting.

I see nothing in the Constitution about felons.
Click to expand...

The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.

Technically, there is no constitutional right to vote. The Constitution gives the states the power to determine voting qualifications.
 
Flash said:
The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.

Technically, there is no constitutional right to vote. The Constitution gives the states the power to determine voting qualifications.
Click to expand...

What justifications? Explain. If there are justifications for denying the 2nd Amendment right, there are justifications for denying the 1st Amendment right as well.
 
The Constitution is dead, our owners (Carlin) now do what ever they want to do, anyone who complains gets a beating.
 
AProudLefty said:
What justifications? Explain. If there are justifications for denying the 2nd Amendment right, there are justifications for denying the 1st Amendment right as well.
Click to expand...

There are several exceptions. You can prosecute threats, for example. Free speech largely applies to topics about public issues.
 
Flash said:
There are several exceptions. You can prosecute threats, for example. Free speech largely applies to topics about public issues.
Click to expand...

There have been speeches that resulted in harm. Why are they not denied their right to free speech? They are free to continue their speeches on social media after they have served their time.
 
For example, inciting to riot can be a felony. That's a 1st Amendment right. So why are they not denied that right after serving their times?
 
AProudLefty said:
There have been speeches that resulted in harm. Why are they not denied their right to free speech? They are free to continue their speeches on social media after they have served their time.
Click to expand...

What harm?

Free speech protects against government restrictions. Social media is a private entity and they can restrict whoever they choose.

Hate speech is protected free speech and cannot be prohibited.
 
Flash said:
What harm?

Free speech protects against government restrictions. Social media is a private entity and they can restrict whoever they choose.

Hate speech is protected free speech and cannot be prohibited.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 2nd Amendment protects against government restrictions on owning and using guns.

So what are the justifications for restricting that right? I do not see them.

Tax evasion? No right to own guns to protect their families. Selling drugs? Same. Any of those felonies that do not involve any kind of weapons.

So what justifications are there?
 
Flash said:
The 2nd allows for regulations on firearm ownership determined by legislation. All speech is not constitutionally protected, but those exceptions do not include being a felon. There is obviously more justification for limiting felons from possessing firearms than free speech.
Click to expand...

what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'????
 
AProudLefty said:
Exactly. 2nd Amendment protects against government restrictions on owning and using guns.

So what are the justifications for restricting that right? I do not see them.

Tax evasion? No right to own guns to protect their families. Selling drugs? Same. Any of those felonies that do not involve any kind of weapons.

So what justifications are there?
Click to expand...


Nikolas Cruz plead guilty today to killing 17 people in a school shooting. I think we might be careful about him carrying around a gun. Not all states prohibit felons from owning guns.

Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license

Of the states that do not require a person to have a permit or license to carry a handgun, we found three that allow felons to possess handguns after a certain amount of time has elapsed since their conviction or release from imprisonment and two that allow a person convicted of a felony to possess handguns if he has been pardoned.

Vermont does not have any statutory requirements governing acquisition or possession of handguns by anyone, including felons

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm
 
Flash said:
Nikolas Cruz plead guilty today to killing 17 people in a school shooting. I think we might be careful about him carrying around a gun. Not all states prohibit felons from owning guns.

Oregon allows a person who has been found guilty of a felony by reason of insanity to apply for a gun license

Of the states that do not require a person to have a permit or license to carry a handgun, we found three that allow felons to possess handguns after a certain amount of time has elapsed since their conviction or release from imprisonment and two that allow a person convicted of a felony to possess handguns if he has been pardoned.

Vermont does not have any statutory requirements governing acquisition or possession of handguns by anyone, including felons

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0335.htm
Click to expand...

He's in prison.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what dictionary are you using that defines 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'????
Click to expand...

Shall not be infringed applies to your right to keep and bear arms. If I have a revolver that is an arm I keep and bear. Shall not be infringed does not say any type of arms.

But, more seriously, I am going by state and federal laws that regulate firearms.

Just as the Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, protection against search and seizure...the same reasonable restrictions apply to firearms.
 
Flash said:
Shall not be infringed applies to your right to keep and bear arms. If I have a revolver that is an arm I keep and bear. Shall not be infringed does not say any type of arms.

But, more seriously, I am going by state and federal laws that regulate firearms.

Just as the Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, protection against search and seizure...the same reasonable restrictions apply to firearms.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, are those arms? A man served his time for stabbing someone with a knife. Does that mean he is denied the right to own and use knives?
 
AProudLefty said:
What, exactly, are those arms? A man served his time for stabbing someone with a knife. Does that mean he is denied the right to own and use knives?
Click to expand...

More to the point. Is he denied the right to own knives or any kind of weapons to protect his family?
 
Flash said:
There are a lot of killers who are not. Or, those who used a gun to commit robbery, sexual assault...
Click to expand...

That's different justifications. Still there's this pesky "shall not be infringed" part.

The SCOTUS can use that as a justification while ignoring the Constitution. The fact remains that the majority of those felons have never used guns or any kind of weapons.
 
AProudLefty said:
That's different justifications. Still there's this pesky "shall not be infringed" part.

The SCOTUS can use that as a justification while ignoring the Constitution. The fact remains that the majority of those felons have never used guns or any kind of weapons.
Click to expand...

You can push for your state to remove those restrictions from felons.

None of the Bill of Rights is interpreted 100% literally. Would you allow free speech to include threats? What about the pesky "no law abridging free speech" 1st amendment? Reasonable restrictions apply to every constitutional right. The 1st says no law restricting free press but we restrict child pornography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top