Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)194. The first amendment means little without ecoomic/social freedom. Only the powerful get a voice then.
The powerless and unpopular are allowed to speak, but not change the conditions of their lives in any meaningful way.
The first is being used to deny others their right to live as they should be allowed, in favor of the religion of the powerful being protected.
The idea of Equality is the only value that America has had and is working to perfect.
Venting is not power.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
244 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I "get" that you don't "get" the idea underlying the First Amendment [View all]
cthulu2016
Dec 2013
OP
Citizens United was narrowly decided by a far right wing supreme court majority.
Enthusiast
Dec 2013
#121
I don't read it that way, and the OP's endorsement of our historical level of freedom of expression-
X_Digger
Dec 2013
#9
Agreed, AND the disagreement is about whether a country can specify a method for whistleblowing.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#73
You're right, Snowden had his 'safe haven' with the whistleblowing laws already on the books.
randome
Dec 2013
#107
If you haven't seen those wishing to put their thumb on the scales of the 'balance'..
X_Digger
Dec 2013
#19
Historically, we permitted slavery and racial discrimination. We aren't stuck in history.
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#86
But the 'harm' in a country of 300 million people cannot be reliably determined...
randome
Dec 2013
#112
Yelling fire in a theatre is usually not merely legal but praiseworthy.
Donald Ian Rankin
Dec 2013
#74
I do not believe that the government should censor hate speech unless it is associated with a crime.
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#93
It's an area where we are "DIFFERENT" than the bulk of the rest of the world
jberryhill
Dec 2013
#15
But we put up with it because we recognize that deciding what speech is OK and what is not
JDPriestly
Dec 2013
#96
I think what many people don't understand is that while we are free to say or write what we wish to
LanternWaste
Dec 2013
#21
There is also the point that while you are free to say essentially anything you want
Fortinbras Armstrong
Dec 2013
#219
I "get" that you don't "get" that shaming consumers of sexualized violence doesn't mean banning
redqueen
Dec 2013
#23
Slut shaming is never OK. Imputing what you consider a negative sexual practice to someone is ugly
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#36
So, because you failed to get me PPR'd for saying that people post MRA talking points here,
redqueen
Dec 2013
#37
You said "Your" meaning the OP's "precious, precious rape porn". OP has never said they consume that
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#39
No, sorry, not even close. If someone does not indicate they have a particular sexual practice and
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#50
No, again, that's not the way it works. You clearly havent thought this through.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#64
Close enough. You are defending an ad-hominem, slut-shaming accusation based on no evidence
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#90
Not only didn't the OP ever say they consumed rape porn, they've not said they consume ANY porn
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#75
'The Supreme Court has addressed pornography more often than almost any other issue of
elleng
Dec 2013
#31
Let's not forget, between the cries of "Liberty!" that this argument is about rape porn.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#33
I imagine that for many people, that same principle is simply a mask to hide a specific point.
LanternWaste
Dec 2013
#44
The OP does point out that the 1st Amendment covers Holocaust denial
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2013
#46
But the crucial difference is that Holocaust denial does not subject more people to the Holocaust.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#143
There is no evidence of causation for either and people concerned about it for both.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#147
The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes that are sold for entertainment.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#148
Possibly. I'm willing to take your word for it on that. But the discussion was causation.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#151
The rape porn genre includes depictions of actual rapes being sold for entertainment. nt.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#152
I read it the first time and that still has no bearing on our conversation. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#153
Nice try at moving the goalposts. No. I accept the underhanded tactic as your surrender in this
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#163
Don't agree with the first two paragraphs but the last two are an important reminder
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#80
"even dangerously unfettered speech and expression".... Not exactly. We outlawed incitement to
WinkyDink
Dec 2013
#51
That's right - people should have freedom of speech to say things that I agree with
el_bryanto
Dec 2013
#59
Perhaps, but political speech and consensual intimate behavior by adults in private are intrinsic
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#98
Are any of us on DU the arbiter of anything? What kind of ridiculous argument is that?
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#130
I know you were doing everything except coming up with anything substantive and non-fallacious
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#133
Is that what you think you posted after your non-sequitur subject and straw man opening?
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#137
LOL, no I didn't and no you didn't. That would require a link to case law, which you don't have. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#146
You've never read that case have you? It completely proves my point. Its nearly impossible for
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#198
Can we ban "pretend" child porn, where the actor seems to be underaged, but is claimed not be?"
redqueen
Dec 2013
#127
I used to describe people who disagreed with my opinions as "throwing entitled tantrums" also.
LanternWaste
Dec 2013
#149
"How wonderful to be able to enjoy graphic depictions of consensual, erotic sex.
sibelian
Dec 2013
#225
Well said. Anyone who says "freedumz" to mock political rights is a spoiled brat
LittleBlue
Dec 2013
#167
I don't take anyone that calls quotation marks "scare quotes" at all seriously.
Egalitarian Thug
Dec 2013
#224
The first amendment means little without ecoomic/social freedom. Only the powerful get a voice then.
freshwest
Dec 2013
#194
Yes, the fear of the full extent of the human erotic imagination's spectrum is frightening.
sibelian
Dec 2013
#226
Honestly, I think some of it has to do with DU's peculiar demographics.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2013
#232
I wish I had 10 dollars for every time someone argued against consenting adult behavior using
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2013
#244