Is it possible to take an Amendment to far?

[Catmouflage]

I am not imposing one opinion over another, I am simply setting the tone. I am genuinely interested in hearing peoples responses.

Is it possible for an American Citizen to take the First Amendment too far? What sparks this question comes from an online conversation I witnessed about the local protest in my hometown about abortion. There is a clinic that practices abortion which protesters frequent within lawful standards out front with signs and posters. These signs and posters are VERY graphic and viewable to all traveling public, car pools, bicyclists, skateboards, walkers, school buses, etc. Again, these protesters are not doing anything unlawful, but is it possible to take their freedom of speech and press too far?

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the matter

Be Advised: this is not a topic of abortion it is a topic of First Amendment rights, the example above was used purely as an example not a main topic.

 

[atmay]

If you don't want to see it, don't look.

Also, there is no Inherent Right to Not Be Offended.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

It is what it is.....in all its graphic details. Calling it something else or presenting it in a whitewashed way doesn't change the facts of what it is and how its done.

I applaud anyone who stands out there in protest to abortion, and even more so, those who hold the graphic pictures of the truth. Passers by don't have to look, they can choose to turn away.

 

[atmay]

It is what it is.....in all its graphic details. Calling it something else or presenting it in a whitewashed way doesn't change the facts of what it is and how its done.

I applaud anyone who stands out there in protest to abortion, and even more so, those who hold the graphic pictures of the truth. Passers by don't have to look, they can choose to turn away.

Now, the real question is this: would you be so supportive of people with graphic pictures in public, when you didn't support their cause?

 

[BradM]

Are these the types of people with pictures of naked dead fetuses? Damned fetalnecropedophiles.

 

[EcHo]

The only limits of free speech that I support are things like screaming "fire" in a crowded theater and people trying to insight riots in large drunk crowds after sporting events. Not to target sporting events, but that's where most rowdy drunk crowds gather. Other than that, say as you like.

 

[Catmouflage]

If you don't want to see it, don't look.

Also, there is no Inherent Right to Not Be Offended.

Do you stand by this statement when it is a bus full of 4th graders on their way home from school?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Now, the real question is this: would you be so supportive of people with graphic pictures in public, when you didn't support their cause?

Yes, why wouldn't I? They are entitled to voice their opinions as I mine. Thats what freedom is about. Next question.

 

[Boghog1]

Do you stand by this statement when it is a bus full of 4th graders on their way home from school?

no worse than what they are teaching them in sex ed, they may as well get the full picture

 

[kaetaur]

They have the right to show whatever they like. They only desire to oppress women, but they have the right to state it.

 

[K-DUB]

Do you stand by this statement when it is a bus full of 4th graders on their way home from school?

Yup. Your offense doesn't trump my rights, no matter which amendment you are offended by. If someone is doing something illegal (example: PETA idiots protesting naked), disruptive (example: blocking or interfering with traffic), they should be dealt with according to the law.

One prime example of despicable free speech is the morons who protest the funerals of our Military. I chose to protest THEM by joining with the Patriot Guard Riders, instead of trying to deny THEIR rights to be idiots.

 

[pernox]

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of spewing your opinion in graphic and obscene ways. Stand on the sidewalk all you want, but keep your distance and allow me to keep mine. I point at people who exhibit offensive shit just for the sake of offending people, and use it as an object lesson for my daughter on how not to grow up. There's something called "class" honey, and that ain't it. We can do this from a safe distance as long as the jackoffs aren't approaching passers by. It's when they get close that us parents have to get a little jiggy.

Shove a picture of a dead fetus in my nine year old's face, and you're going to walk with a limp for a while.

 

[Jose]

They have the right to show whatever they like. They only desire to oppress women, but they have the right to state it.

No, we don't want to oppress women.

We just want to prevent murder of someone who did not ask to be created just to be killed. Use some other form of birth control.

Are you a murderer?

 

[AppleSeeds]

 

[terraformer]

The first amendment can't be used to instruct direct harm (screaming fire in a crowded room) and doesn't protect speech that is purient and has no academic or intellectual value. Those signs would be covered.

And thanks in advance Jose for taking the bait and potentially getting this thread locked... It was a 1st amendment thread and a very good question Kaisha77 asked.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

OH JEEZ.

An abortion thread?

 

[LoginName]

This thread won't last long.

 

[Garys]

I think the biggest problem with this is that it's ineffective. In fact, I'd say it's counter productive. You don't get people to agree with your view point by offending them. Same with the proposal to put graphic pictures of diseased lungs in places that sell tobacco products. It turns people off to the message when you make them so upset that they turn away from your signs, posters, or videos.

 

[MisterHappy]

It's fine to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, if it's burning.

As for the above mentioned speech, I'm not in favor of the message, but in favor of their right to express it.

If the mode of expression is repugnant to viewers, then the message will be lost because of the medium.

IBTL

 

[red87930]

Nevermind



IBTL

 

[Martlet]

OH JEEZ.

An abortion thread?

Everyone knows where I stand. I'll save myself a banning.

 

[atmay]

Do you stand by this statement when it is a bus full of 4th graders on their way home from school?

Like I said;

If you don't want to see it, don't look.

Also, there is no Inherent Right to Not Be Offended.

Yes, why wouldn't I? They are entitled to voice their opinions as I mine. Thats what freedom is about. Next question.

Was just wondering, not everyone answers that question the way you did. Thanks for answering correctly, btw

 

[Boghog1]

Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from the consequences of spewing your opinion in graphic and obscene ways. Stand on the sidewalk all you want, but keep your distance and allow me to keep mine. I point at people who exhibit offensive shit just for the sake of offending people, and use it as an object lesson for my daughter on how not to grow up. There's something called "class" honey, and that ain't it. We can do this from a safe distance as long as the jackoffs aren't approaching passers by. It's when they get close that us parents have to get a little jiggy.

Shove a picture of a dead fetus in my nine year old's face, and you're going to walk with a limp for a while.

this goes back to the case of Bam using the N word. he was fully withing his right to use the word. You can use words you want any, just be prepared for the consequences

 

[pernox]

this goes back to the case of Bam using the N word. he was fully withing his right to use the word. You can use words you want any, just be prepared for the consequences

Sure thing.

We're all proponents of gun rights, here. (well, mostly)

But how many of us would take a post-mortem photo of a B&E rape/murder victim to the print shop to blow it up and put it on a stick to protest a new gun banning law? "If she had a gun, would this have happened?!" That's the type of thing that rational human beings save for their websites and books so that those who WANT to see it, can. Voluntary human decency should apply.

 

[Catmouflage]

Everyone knows where I stand. I'll save myself a banning.

Just to make this loud and clear, this is not a thread based on peoples personal opinions of abortions. I was using that as an example since the question at large stemmed from an internet conversation regarding that topic. The question as many have pointed out is can using the First Amendment to the extreme be considered going to far? I do like the example of the diseased lung pictures that get hung up in middle school hallways as well. Point is, this is not a topic of abortion it is a topic of First Amendment rights.

 

[dwarven1]

I am not imposing one opinion over another, I am simply setting the tone. I am genuinely interested in hearing peoples responses.

Is it possible for an American Citizen to take the First Amendment too far?

No. Even Fred Phelps has the right to spew his hate-filled filth, damn him.

If you don't want to see it, don't look.

Also, there is no Inherent Right to Not Be Offended.

What he said.

 

[Martlet]

Shove a picture of a dead fetus in my nine year old's face, and you're going to walk with a limp for a while.

uh huh

 

[Gonzo]

The answer is no.

Unless you live in Mass.

 

[theGringo]

This thread was an abortion from post #1. IBTL.

 

[Martlet]

Just to make this loud and clear, this is not a thread based on peoples personal opinions of abortions. I was using that as an example since the question at large stemmed from an internet conversation regarding that topic. The question as many have pointed out is can using the First Amendment to the extreme be considered going to far? I do like the example of the diseased lung pictures that get hung up in middle school hallways as well. Point is, this is not a topic of abortion it is a topic of First Amendment rights.

I've seen plenty of examples that I think are taking it "too far". I support someone's right to idiotically exercise it.