1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

First amendment is limited

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Salty, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club

    Apr 8, 2003
    Likes Received:
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    May 16, 2005
    Likes Received:
    Neither are wise. However, it is very selective around here. What about Piers Morgan's First Amendment rights?
  3. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Mar 17, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Pierce Morgan may have guaranteed rights under the Constitution but the individual covered by these rights should use certain discretionary judgment.

    For example, freedom of speech is guaranteed under the 1st Ammendment, but does that freedom include the right to utter seditious statements, or statements that incite to rebellion against established authority, or the right to speech that erodes the morals of society ?

    I don't think there is anyone on this board who will say "yes" to unbounded freedom of speech ?
    This board itself adheres to a strict speech discipline, so now, what if I protest under the 1st Ammendment ?
    Suppose I argue that the board's speech discipline requirements are offensive and violates my 1st ammendment rights ?
    Then I am going to get the counter-argument that there were rules and regulations before I signed up and that in signing up for membership in this board, I have already agreed to those rules and so among other things I agreed to limit my freedom of speech.
    Or I might get the argument that decency requires certain forms of speech to be prohibited.

    Sure, Morgan has the right to his opinion about how the United States' CITIZENS' rights to ownership of firearms need to be abridged, but it is CRASSLY INDISCREET of him to engage in a campaign to deny AMERICAN CITIZENS (which he is NOT) a right guaranteed to them by the constitution.

    A little research will reveal that the founding fathers worded the 2nd Ammendment in such a way as to make it understandable that the individual's right to possess arms cannot be abridged by ANYONE, not the state, not the federal government, even if the ACLU argued that the right to bear arms is for the state only.

    In other words, Pierce Morgan, is campaigning, even insulting those who oppose him, using his position in media, for a result, which, if it should come to anything at all procedurally, should be submitted to the decision of CITIZENS, again, which he is not.

    When I was a legal resident under Mr. Clinton, I lost respect for him because of the Monica Lewinsky issue, and, in my perception, his inaction on Osama bin Laden, but I kept my opinion mostly to myself, not even voicing them to fellow Filipinos who are already US citizens for the simple reason that it's not really my problem. I'm just a resident, a visitor granted the right to work and live here permanently, and until I swear an oath of allegiance to this country, its political issues are not my problem.

    But, then, what can be expected of a "journalist" who fabricates in his own country so that even his own country despises him ?
    Yeah, I guess he'll thrive in America.
    This is a country where the contemptible is glorified, under the ammendments.
  4. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Mar 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Selective is right. If Hannity had guests on his show that thought the idea of murdering someone for having a different view was funny you and all the liberal tv talking heads would go through the roof and call for a lynching party.
    #4 poncho, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013