Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A quick lesson on the first amendment

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 21, 2012, 7:37 p.m. EST by Denofearth (41)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Every time I view FOX, or accidentally listen to the save the rich anthem of the Republicans, or inadvertently tune in Rush Limbaugh on my radio, I want to pull out my brain and chew on it. How is this blatantly false information allowed to keep being spewed forth for us to be contaminated by? It finally occurred to me that we have somehow accepted as fact a pure fiction regarding the first amendment. The intent of the first is that citizens, whether in public or in private, may be able to speak out about anything ( short of actually conspiring to commit illegal acts ) without having to fear that their nosey neighbor could turn them in to the authorities. The first in no way shape or form guarantees anyone the write to be published or be broadcast. It says the government shall not interfere, but it leaves to us the job of policing what is written or broadcast. If Rush, for example, were sued for every slanderous piece of crap that has tumbled from his venomous fat jowls he would be lucky to have a dumpster to keep the rain off. Equally, if he had to get on a soapbox in a town square somewhere and spew his intellectual diarrhea ( having been stripped of his broadcast license as should have happened years ago ) I'm quite certain he would be dissuaded from continuing based on the number of times his mouth was shut with a fist and the number of teeth he would have lost. We have laws that are supposed to protect us from the slander and libel of the vicious, the rude, and the downright dangerous but we seem to lack anyone willing to pursue such cases. Too bad just one more indication that America is going the way of the Roman empire...and in less than half the time.

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 9 years ago

It should be noted that by the time Rome was an 'official' empire, it was no longer a republic.

The Roman Republic lasted approximately 200 years according to their own records. The decline of the empire began when the citizens were removed from their land for the benefit of the nobility (aka political houses), when slave labor began to replace citizen labor and expansion (war) lead to classifications of citizens beyond Roman and not Roman.

[-] 1 points by MaryEmma (3) 9 years ago

If our laws regarding slander and libel were similar to those in Canada or the UK it would be easier to take legal action against people like Mr. Limbaugh. Allowing him to use public radio space without fairness to those he wished to defame might require the return of the "fairness doctrine." (The first time I saw Rush Limbaugh I had fallen asleep watching the evening news. When I woke up I thought he was a Saturday Night Live skit.)

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

I'll bet you've never even listened to his show for more than 2 minutes, if at all. And also, I'll be you just LOVE Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 9 years ago

What is he lying about.?

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 9 years ago

What is your proof of so called slander? And who is doing the policing?

[-] 1 points by Denofearth (41) 9 years ago

Here's some proof for you to ponder. Al Franken wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Liar" Of course Rush tried to stop publication of said book, but as Franken was able to prove, in court, the accuracy of his title Rush lost his case and Franken's book was published.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 9 years ago

And that makes what he wrote true? And who give a damn about Franken or Limbaugh?

[-] -3 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

I "accidentally" stumbled upon your post, read your gibberish, totally disagree with you, but think you have the First Amendment right to make a complete ASS of yourself.

[-] 3 points by Denofearth (41) 9 years ago

Call it gibberish all you like. I notice you offer no facts to support your claim that my post is gibberish, or even anything remotely resembling an intelligent response. Your response illustrates exactly my objection to people like Limbaugh. If you have no actual facts that's OK make a personal attack and walk away in the glow of your pseudo-superiority.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 9 years ago

"it leaves to us the job of policing what is written or broadcast." Why has Rush not been sued for all this so called slander?

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Your entire post is a personal attack on Rush with ZERO facts. Pure gibberish.

[-] 2 points by Denofearth (41) 9 years ago

Gibberish huh? Riddle me this then batman. Al Franken wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Liar" Rush, of course, took legal action in an attempt to stop this book from being published. In court Franken was able to prove the accuracy of his statement and Rush lost. Read the book and see if you still think your big fat lying hero is so great.

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 9 years ago

For your statement to be considered fact, you have to document the information that you are discussing. Without documentation, your words are just your opinion. Hope that helps out. Now you can cite the information and prove your original statement(s).

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Why should I? You are irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 9 years ago

What I am is not the point. If you wish to be relevant, then you need to follow agreed to methods to cite your sources. Whether I agreed with you are not, I was pointing out what was being asked of you. Unable to do that, your opinion remains just that, an opinion. Cheers!

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

So you're the one that bought Franken's book (besides his mom).

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Good post.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. I believe that it's principal is also quite often misunderstood and more often abused.

Take campaigning for instance. Sure the candidates should be allowed to say what they want. But I think it is wrong to allow others to campaign for them and attack the other candidates as they do so.

Let the candidates do their thing and our freedom of speech can be shown at the polls. We can talk to each-other one to one and discuss how we feel about this or that, but it does not mean we have the right to flood the air-waves with propaganda for or against someone running for office. An individuals right to free speech is not a corporate right to spread propaganda.

I know this did not come out as clear as I wanted but it is a tough thing to consider. What is free speech and what is abuse.