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

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...

The problem with taking someone's 2nd amendment rights is that today, every felon has their right to own and possess a firearm stripped from them. Doesn't matter what their crime was or how long ago it occurred.

This means someone who say committed credit card fraud and got convicted of a felony for it loses their right to bear a firearm, even though their crime had nothing to do with firearms, violence, or anything related to that.
Even if a state restores someone's rights in full or otherwise, the feds will still come in and slap felon with a firearm on them if they are caught with one.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

They tried that with Larry Flynt. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. It was a very important case. Thank God the SCOTUS had a sense that day.

Watch The People vs. Larry Flynt.
 
AProudLefty said:
They tried that with Larry Flynt. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. It was a very important case. Thank God the SCOTUS had a sense that day.

Watch The People vs. Larry Flynt.
Click to expand...

That case was a parody of a commercial. It did not involve child pornography.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The problem with taking someone's 2nd amendment rights is that today, every felon has their right to own and possess a firearm stripped from them. Doesn't matter what their crime was or how long ago it occurred.

This means someone who say committed credit card fraud and got convicted of a felony for it loses their right to bear a firearm, even though their crime had nothing to do with firearms, violence, or anything related to that.
Even if a state restores someone's rights in full or otherwise, the feds will still come in and slap felon with a firearm on them if they are caught with one.
Click to expand...

See that's what I am talking about.

The same justifications can be used against the First Amendment right and any other rights. For example, the right to vote. Why is that being denied?
 
AProudLefty said:
See that's what I am talking about.

The same justifications can be used against the First Amendment right and any other rights. For example, the right to vote. Why is that being denied?
Click to expand...

Where is the right to vote being denied? The only agreement on that I can give is once a felon is off parole and out of prison they should be able to vote. While on parole or in prison they shouldn't. Parole is just a form of "community custody" where the person is still subject to state control. I'd even say someone on welfare--full welfare-- might not be able to vote as they too are wards of the state.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Where is the right to vote being denied? The only agreement on that I can give is once a felon is off parole and out of prison they should be able to vote. While on parole or in prison they shouldn't. Parole is just a form of "community custody" where the person is still subject to state control. I'd even say someone on welfare--full welfare-- might not be able to vote as they too are wards of the state.
Click to expand...

Right. After they have served their times, why is their right to vote being denied?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It shouldn't be, but that is a state-by-state issue, not a federal one. The feds deny felons any chance of having their 2nd amendment rights restored.
Click to expand...

What, in the Constitution, allows the US government to deny their right to vote?

If the SCOTUS can deny them the right to own guns, they can also deny their right to free speech.
 
AProudLefty said:
CP is an extreme example.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. But if something is an absolute right (shall not be infringed) it also applies to extreme situations. The courts have ruled computer generated child pornography is protected (because it does not harm any children).

To be less extreme we can use adult pornography. What about a law prohibiting animal sacrifices for religious purposes?

If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be extreme how can we restrict minors?

Either our constitutional rights are absolute (Justice Hugo Black) or they are not absolute and can be restricted.
 
AProudLefty said:
What, in the Constitution, allows the US government deny their right to vote?

If the SCOTUS can deny them the right to own guns, they can also deny their right to free speech.
Click to expand...

The US government isn't denying that right. Individual states--in some cases--are. States control voting in their state. That's in the Constitution. The SCOTUS didn't deny them the right to own guns, Congress did.
 
Flash said:
Yes, it is. But if something is an absolute right (shall not be infringed) it also applies to extreme situations. The courts have ruled computer generated child pornography is protected (because it does not harm any children).

To be less extreme we can use adult pornography. What about a law prohibiting animal sacrifices for religious purposes?

If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be extreme how can we restrict minors?

Either our constitutional rights are absolute (Justice Hugo Black) or they are not absolute and can be restricted.
Click to expand...

Genuine rape, murder, Taliban/ISIS chopping off those women's heads and such are not ruled against.

I can still access those ugly videos and pictures with no problem.
 
Flash said:
Yes, it is. But if something is an absolute right (shall not be infringed) it also applies to extreme situations. The courts have ruled computer generated child pornography is protected (because it does not harm any children).

To be less extreme we can use adult pornography. What about a law prohibiting animal sacrifices for religious purposes?

If the right to keep and bear arms shall not be extreme how can we restrict minors?

Either our constitutional rights are absolute (Justice Hugo Black) or they are not absolute and can be restricted.
Click to expand...

BTW, don't even get me started about those videos I've seen (I wish I didn't) where the drug cartels cut off those women and kids' heads off with dull knives.

Protected free speech amendment? Yep.

Edit - Corrected my retarded errors. Oops. My point still stands.
 
Last edited:
AProudLefty said:
Genuine rape, murder, Taliban/ISIS chopping off those women's heads and such are not ruled against.

I can still access those ugly videos and pictures with no problem.
Click to expand...

The court does not rule whether something is allowed. Our rights restrict government from infringing on those rights.

If the government tried to prohibit Taliban videos and the source challenged that action, the courts would rule whether the government had the constitutional power to restrict those videos.

There is nothing constitutional or unconstitutional about Taliban videos. The court is ruling whether the government action prohibiting those videos is constitutional.

I don't think any of those actions you listed could be restricted. Restrictions on free press is very limited although things like movies do not have the same level of protections as print media.
 
AProudLefty said:
BTW, don't even get me started about those videos I've seen (I wish I didn't) where the drug cartels cut off those women and kids' heads off with dull knifes.

Protected free amendment? Yep.
Click to expand...

What would be the basis for restricting them? They are gross? You can restrict much more on broadcast television than cable TV because you choose to bring that into your home while broadcast TV is just through the air.
 
Apparently videos of them torturing and chopping off the kids' heads off is allowed.

Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?
 
Flash said:
What would be the basis for restricting them? They are gross? You can restrict much more on broadcast television than cable TV because you choose to bring that into your home while broadcast TV is just through the air.
Click to expand...

You're the one who used CP as an extreme example. It's on you.
 
Flash said:
The court does not rule whether something is allowed. Our rights restrict government from infringing on those rights.
Click to expand...

Correct. So why is SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and restricting our rights?
 
Flash said:
What would be the basis for restricting them? They are gross? You can restrict much more on broadcast television than cable TV because you choose to bring that into your home while broadcast TV is just through the air.
Click to expand...

Hence my question in the OP. What are the justifications in restricting them when the Constitution is clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top