Support NeoGAF

[Christoff Yurievich]

http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/050130/050130first_amendment.html

the most astounding part of the findings:

21% think musicians should not be allowed to sing songs that may offend others.
36% think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval.

What the hell is going on with our country? The last one really gets to me. How can so many teenagers think that is a viable option? "Hey, we're trying to install a democracy in Iraq, let's get rid of ours while we're at it!"

If children are our future, I pity the future.

more findings will be posted tomorrow (Jan 31) at http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org.

 

[RedDwarf]

Scary stuff. firstamendmentfuture.org craps out on me, I'll check it again later.

 

[Matlock]

The only thing about the first amendment is that it only protects speech to a certain extent: once that speech affects someone in an adverse way, it can be punished.

Or at least, that's the constructionist way to look at it.

 

[Kuroyume]

High school students are too stupid to be taken seriously.

 

[BlackSalad]

yeah that totally reflects what the future is going to be like.

When I was younger I wanted to be a dog, but somehow got into engineering. My how time changes things!

 

[Echoes of Pink]

My dad who was a vietnam vet told me that "there's no one worth dying for in this country." Every news story I read keeps making him more right.

 

[AntoneM]

High school students are too stupid to be taken seriously.

It needed repeating.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Polls have always shown this sort of thing, sometimes to much more frightening amounts even in a democracy. ie. people have, and always will be, largely stupid automatons.

 

[AstroLad]

I don't think those teenagers should be allowed to reproduce without government approval.

 

[kumanoki]

I don't think those teenagers should be allowed to reproduce without GAF approval.

Fixed.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

They've been treading on the 2nd ammendment for years.

 

[AstroLad]

Fixed.

Nah, pass. Cute idea though.

 

[Phoenix]

Those percentages are too low to really merit more than a chuckle, especially given the demographic. With 74% of those polled believing that you should be able to burn the flag, I'm not really sure how 'lost' these teens are. I'm sure if you polled pose adults you'll find similar percentages of people who feel that the media should not be allowed to offend.

 

[AntoneM]

They've been treading on the 2nd ammendment for years.

Second amendment isn't necessary anymore. That's the best part of the constitution, we can change it at will.

 

[Archaix]

Those percentages are too low to really merit more than a chuckle, especially given the demographic. With 74% of those polled believing that you should be able to burn the flag, I'm not really sure how 'lost' these teens are. I'm sure if you polled pose adults you'll find similar percentages of people who feel that the media should not be allowed to offend.

74% said you should not be able to burn the flag, not that you should be able to.

And one in four saying that the press should need government approval is not easily dismissed.

 

[Phoenix]

74% said you should not be able to burn the flag, not that you should be able to.

You're right. I misread that.

And one in four saying that the press should need government approval is not easily dismissed.

Working with the media for several years that percentage seems to go over to the nation. If it were 50% of people who could vote, I'd be more concerned.

 

[Uter]

I thought this was the best part.

Teachers and school administrators who participated in the survey confirm that too many students have little access to journalism programs that might teach the value of constitutional rights of free expression.

"journalism programs"??? Apparently journalism programs are the ONLY reasonable way that high school students might learn about their fundamental constitution rights... oh what would we do without our illustrious public school system...

 

[MrPing1000]

U guys passed the Patriot Act, u tell me

 

[MIMIC]

I saw this on CNN just a few minutes ago.

Crazy kids.

 

[Incognito]

U guys passed the Patriot Act, u tell me

wUts that have to do with the first amendment?

 

[MrPing1000]

quite a bit I thought

 

[demon]

U guys passed the Patriot Act, u tell me

Yeah, what was I thinking...

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

U guys passed the Patriot Act, u tell me

GAF = Congress? Damn that means one of us is Dick Cheny. I wonder who it is...

 

[MrPing1000]

congress is elected by the american people which is the largest group of people on gaf so yes gaf - nonusagaf = congress

 

[demon]

gaf so yes gaf - nonusagaf = congress

What kind of half-assed logic is that? I didn't vote for anyone who authored the Patriot Act, and the Congress, as stupid as they are, barely bothered reading it when they passed it. But you're right...other than that, the Patriot Act is my fault.

And considering the Patriot Act had no problems passing through Congress, exactly who was I supposed to vote for to prevent it from getting passed? Yeah, probably no one, that's right.

 

[MrPing1000]

calm down demon I wasn't being serious

 

[demon]

Yeah, well.........FUCK YOU.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Second amendment isn't necessary anymore. That's the best part of the constitution, we can change it at will.

We can trust the government to have a monopoly on guns.

Right?

Patriot Act? Wounded Knee 1974? Waco?

Right?

 

[Iceman]

High school students are too stupid to be taken seriously.

There you go.

 

[AntoneM]

We can trust the government to have a monopoly on guns.

Right?

Patriot Act? Wounded Knee 1974? Waco?

Right?

Did Gahndi use a gun? Did MLK use a gun?
Even ignoring that, the guns that we have are nothing compared to the crazy ass shit the military has. I't not like the American public would defeat it's own army because they have pistols. Yet another point, we CAN trust the govt. to have a monopoly on guns IF we trust the people we vote into office.

 

[Iceman]

"Yet another point, we CAN trust the govt. to have a monopoly on guns IF we trust the people we vote into office."

Wha? When's that ever going to happen? Probably the same day I find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

 

[AntoneM]

"Yet another point, we CAN trust the govt. to have a monopoly on guns IF we trust the people we vote into office."

Wha? When's that ever going to happen? Probably the same day I find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

if you can't trust them why do you vote for them?

 

[Flynn]

High school students don't have freedom of speech, why should they give a fuck about the First Amendment?

See Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) in which the Supreme Court decided that high school journalists are not protected by the First Amendment.
http://www.e-z.net/~itkin/hazlwd.htm

 

[Boogie]

if you can't trust them why do you vote for them?

Does the phrase "the lesser of two evils" hold any meaning for you?

 

[Escape Goat]

I wonder how many people are still against womens suffrage.

 

[Boogie]

I wonder how many people are still against womens suffrage.

According to Jay Leno, quite a few.

 

[Monk]

36% think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval.

...That is just wrong.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Did Gahndi use a gun? Did MLK use a gun?

No they didn't, but the Continental Army did against the British, so did the Allies against the Axis.

Even ignoring that, the guns that we have are nothing compared to the crazy ass shit the military has.

It doesn't have to be against the military dimwit. It could be armed government agents.

I't not like the American public would defeat it's own army because they have pistols.

Read the oath of enlistment.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The 2nd is there to protect the constitution and to give the people a way to start a revolution if the government becomes tyrannical.

Yet another point, we CAN trust the govt. to have a monopoly on guns IF we trust the people we vote into office.

 

[Loki]

36% think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval.

Holy shit... :lol


Funny and sad at the same time.

 

[AntoneM]

sokar, when fighting a war against an occupying force, yes you need guns. Until the US is occupied by a foreign nation we have no need to own guns. If govt. gets so out of hand that we as the people feel the need to not just change it's leaders, but start a revolution, we would have no hope of beating the govt. through force. The only thing a govt. fears is people in the street and this has been proven many times across the world. People have succeeded in revoltution without weapons. A well armed public is just not necessary anymore.

Boogie, our government has rule by consent. If we continue to vote people into office who are corrupt even if they are the lesser of 2 evils, then democracy fails, there cannot be any compromise.

 

[MIMIC]

GAF = Congress? Damn that means one of us is Dick Cheny. I wonder who it is...

Me.

Nobody'll care if a jump of a bridge, right?

 

[bionic77]

That was pathetic. Where the fuck do these kids get these ideas from?

I would like to see what teenagers though about the first amendment before the advent of Fox News......

 

[Socreges]

Holy shit... :lol


Funny and sad at the same time.

Seriously. The "Hey, high school kids are dumb!" is only acceptable to some degree. The idea of free press should either be fundamentally known or just an inclination when you're ignorant and have to choose. 36% is too high, everything considered, imo.

That so many of them believe that the government should have to approve all newspaper publishings is, I think, demonstrative that their impression of government is completely wrong. It may be laissez-faire (or whatever word is appropriate!) in practice, but it seems like the media and general atmosphere in the country often has Americans raised with the impression that the government should (intrinsically, ethically) be allowed to impose a whole lot.

 

[Uter]

quite a bit I thought

Oh please do elaborate, and with actual text from the patriot act and the verified instances it has been used to infringe on 1st amendment rights.

Second amendment isn't necessary anymore. That's the best part of the constitution, we can change it at will.

Your ignorance is amusing, we have a written constitution, not a living constitution. It is quite hard to pass a constitutional amendment, which is the only way the constitution can altered. The 2nd amendment is still needed for the exact same reasons it was back at our founding.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." - [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

Just as that poll is a wonderful example of a general ignorance of 1st Amendment rights with the youth in High Schools today, you are a wonderful example of ignorance concerning the 2nd Amendment...

 

[Vinzer Deling]

sokar, when fighting a war against an occupying force, yes you need guns. Until the US is occupied by a foreign nation we have no need to own guns.

Do you put on a seat belt only when in an accident occurs? Do you buy a smoke alarm only when there is a fire is burning down half your house?

If govt. gets so out of hand that we as the people feel the need to not just change it's leaders, but start a revolution, we would have no hope of beating the govt. through force.

Americans did it once, it was called the Revolutionary War. So did the Swiss.

The only thing a govt. fears is people in the street and this has been proven many times across the world.

The government doesn't fear the people, the people are so easily manipulated. Hell look at the polls on this thread, people are WILLING to give up their rights. And for what? These kids are going to be adults soon and they're the ones who are going to have voting power. So why should the government fear the populice who would easily give up such a fundamental right?

People have succeeded in revoltution without weapons. A well armed public is just not necessary anymore.

And people have survived falling from great distances suffering only scatches. So are you going to jump from a 3 story building and expect the same?

 

[AntoneM]

better than the needless death of tens of millions of people.

 

[AntoneM]

Just as that poll is a wonderful example of a general ignorance of 1st Amendment rights with the youth in High Schools today, you are a wonderful example of ignorance concerning the 2nd Amendment...

Hot damn! I must be the most blissful fucker on the whole planet! But, you've just made me aware of my ignorance. Now I'm so depressed I'll go buy a gun and shoot myself in the face. Oh the irony!

Would haveing gun in this hypothetical situation be useful? Yes, I'm not denying that. Would the weapons we can own be effective ion this situation? No. The ends do not justify the means, the same results can be accomplished without guns. How can there possibly be an argument that we need guns in case we need to start a revolution when revolutions can and will continue to be accomplished without guns.

 

[Socreges]

Your ignorance is amusing, we have a written constitution, not a living constitution. It is quite hard to pass a constitutional amendment, which is the only way the constitution can altered. The 2nd amendment is still needed for the exact same reasons it was back at our founding.

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." - [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi

Just as that poll is a wonderful example of a general ignorance of 1st Amendment rights with the youth in High Schools today, you are a wonderful example of ignorance concerning the 2nd Amendment...

What exactly was ignorant about what he said? You may feel he's wrong, but that doesn't make him ignorant. Especially since there's a legitimate debate of whether or not the right to bear arms is necessary. Oh, and quoting other people, however intelligent, hardly serves as an argument by itself. Gandhi's quote, for instance, was a product of its time -- India being defenseless and colonized. But with America it can be said that responsible government has matured so well that arms against the state aren't required (I don't necessarily agree!), and regarding crime, the lack of arms might be safer than everyone with the capacity to equip.

I like those quotes, though.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Hot damn! I must be the most blissful fucker on the whole planet! But, you've just made me aware of my ignorance. Now I'm so depressed I'll go buy a gun and shoot myself in the face. Oh the irony!

Why don't you start by answering my questions? Or atleast try to come up with an argument (which you obviously can't)

Would haveing gun in this hypothetical situation be useful? Yes, I'm not denying that.

Would the weapons we can own be effective ion this situation? No.

Sure it can, the VC repelled the US back with small arms running around in flip flops didn't they? I'd say it was pretty damn effective. So did the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. Or the Swiss who's armed citizens kept their country safe when the whole world was dragged into 2 world wars.

The ends do not justify the means the same results can be accomplished without guns. How can there possibly be an argument that we need guns in case we need to start a revolution when revolutions can and will continue to be accomplished without guns.

Sure, lets ask this guy.

 

[Uter]

Hot damn! I must be the most blissful fucker on the whole planet! But, you've just made me aware of my ignorance. Now I'm so depressed I'll go buy a gun and shoot myself in the face. Oh the irony!

What am I supposed to do with this inane rambling other than to call it...inane rambling?...

Would haveing gun in this hypothetical situation be useful? Yes, I'm not denying that. Would the weapons we can own be effective ion this situation? No. The ends do not justify the means, the same results can be accomplished without guns. How can there possibly be an argument that we need guns in case we need to start a revolution when revolutions can and will continue to be accomplished without guns.

You don't even specify what hypothetical situation in my posts you are replying to. In fact, what in the world ARE you responding to specifically?

You have failed to respond to the point that we have a specific legal right to bear arms that is NOT derived from State governments, or even the federal government, and that this right is absolute. This right is independent of any lawmaking power which means no law can be passed to infringe upon or impair it. Where is your response?

You say the ends do not justify the means, and then you make the completely opposite argument by arguing that for some vague and basically unexplained reason, the constitutional right of people to bear arms in protection of themselves and their country should be removed and infringed upon for what? "the good of the people"? How exactly would this complete removal of guns take place WITHOUT the use of force? But the ends justify the means...don't they.

Please list the many revolutions that have been successfully accomplished without guns.

Apparently there is no need for guns in personal defense any longer?... The Department of Justice sponsored 1994 survey "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", this survey estimated that 1.5 million defensive gun uses occured per year by law abiding citizens. awww..

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

What exactly was ignorant about what he said? You may feel he's wrong, but that doesn't make him ignorant. Especially since there's a legitimate debate of whether or not the right to bear arms is necessary. Oh, and quoting other people, however intelligent, hardly serves as an argument by itself. Gandhi's quote, for instance, was a product of its time -- India being defenseless and colonized. But with America it can be said that responsible government has matured so well that arms against the state aren't required (I don't necessarily agree!), and regarding crime, the lack of arms might be safer than everyone with the capacity to equip.

I like those quotes, though.

What he said does make him ignorant. We do NOT have a living constitution, will that suddenly change because someone's vague feel good opinions state that we do in effect have a constitution (living) that can be changed at will? um..no. He says that the right to bear arms isn't necessary, and then ignores arguments for it. People actually use guns for PERSONAL defense, you sure wouldn't know it from his selective responses even after my quotes bring that reason up.

Responsible government has matured? ... Please tell me how our government has fundamentally changed so that is no longer affected by human nature. What specifically has changed within human nature or to our form of government that would define a "maturation", that being a change so abrupt as to warrant a removal of historically proven checks and balances on governmental oppression?

You say you like my quotes and then you comment on crime and give an opinion that it "might" be safer to remove rights than to have them. um...does my Cesare Beccaria quote ring a bell? That quote did serve as an argument by itself, and one you seemed to have completely ignored or not understood. I see no reason to assume otherwise from your comments.