Why is the First Ammendment incompatible with modern liberals and leftism?

Why is the First Ammendment incompatible with modern liberals and leftism?

Was this always the case?
We can trace the downfall of the US to the Civil Rights Act, but what about the demonization of the Girst Ammendment?

Other urls found in this thread:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg
townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-hate-speech-is-still-free-speech-n2343286
congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>the first amendment is meant for the fringes of society to be protected
>the first amendment in a fundamental facet of our society of shouldn't be impaired.
kek bending the entire society to protect the the few.

Dissenting opinion is not tolerated among those who view their opinions as on par with divinity. To disagree with them to is to deny them their self-view as being above and superior.

face it anti authoritards your individualism only benefits you and is thus a soft form of authoritarianism which you find acceptable because of your benefits and not societies benefit.
rights don't matter only quality of life matters for the majority. true freedom is economic freedom and quality of life.

They get genuinely suicidal when they have to face up to their own inadequacies. They will tell any lie to keep from having to face such painful truths. They will force you to walk their own talk while only talking it themselves, just to get an advantage over you. If you ask them about the contradiction between their words and actions they either freeze up or give you a nonsense excuse. Such people can never tolerate free speech because it exposes their lies and makes them feel suicidal. Consider that if you suprised them by painting swastika's everywhere they would genuinely believe that a second Holocaust was just around the corner. They have been hypnotized since birth to fear and dread the mere sight of the swistaka.

Long term quality of life depends on individual rights.

Freedoms allow individuals to craft society in the image they think is best (and thus maximize their quality of life).

Authoritiarian states are not as adaptable, and cannot fill the same needs.

>long term quality of life depends on individual rights
wrong long term quality of life depends on economic development. rights without context are useless. first amendment rights are only truly useful for the fringes of society who are unimpeded by low quality of life by expression through individual rights. the majority are concerned first by biological function. once fulfilled by economic development they require a higher calling which can be fulfilled through high faculty pursuits.

>wrong long term quality of life depends on economic development.
Both are true.

>first amendment rights are only truly useful for the fringes of society who are unimpeded by low quality of life by expression through individual rights.

Your assumption here is that the majority of the population always agrees with the people in power: It's not the case.... and the only way we can find out when it isn't the case is if we have freedom of speech.

you can have individual freedom to fulfill the fringes while having a restriction for harmful elements to express themselves but reducing societal functions to a simple horseshoe of authoritarianism vs individualism is a false dichotomy that helps nobody. it ignores the concerns and well being of the majority to have a nice country free from subversion. to allow a small amount to have freedom. you can have intellectual discourse but to relentlessly pursuit individual freedom is what allows people to act irresponsibly under a guise of individual liberty.

Authoritarianism presupposes a genius, well intentioned ruler who is smart enough to know what is best for everyone.

In the case where you have that, it's all great. But, generally you don't have it... and when you do, it doesn't last very long.

the way I see it you have a drunk driver
he has an incredible amount of freedom
but he can hurt other people so you need to deal with him via authoritarian and violent means.
and so you need an authority to act as a societal glue because the only way to ultimately keep people acting civil is violence. and I think that's what individualists and libertarians forget.

If a society can be subverted, so can a king. Anywhere you put power, that can be subverted. There's no way to avoid it.

Retarded memeflag should kill himself.
It would benefit society.

I agree with you that there's some middle ground.

On one hand, most people are too stupid to know what they want, so it's stupid to put power in their hands.

On the other hand, it's even riskier to try and select a king.... because if you guess wrong, the society is destroyed very quickly. America's system is one attempt at a compromise.

I think it might be possible to have both with a constitutional democratic dictatorship.
an un-ammendable constitution guaranteeing certain rights and a sword of Damocles to keep politicians in check. while also having a democratic system to ensure the population has a means of expressing their desires by voting who gets to run the country for a certain amount of time having much more power and efficiency to run it.

gun rights would also be mandatory for the population every household would have a gun and mandatory weapons safety training. like a drivers license.

That is literally what leftism is doing. That is all it has been doing for decades.
>Trannies make up less than a tenth of a percent of the population
>All of society must cater to their needs and never disagree or else be called a bigot and get fired
Pick whatever group of "few" you want and you will see leftists try to bend all of society to their whims.

I'm thinking a system like america with a way that the dictator could keep the people in check while the people keep the dictator in check.

meme flag meets meme argument.

Yea, I wouldn't say that that's necessarily a bad system.... but you'd need to do some major tweaking, because every time obama or trump got elected, there would be a civil war.

>Why is the First Ammendment incompatible with modern liberals and leftism?
Modern leftists are comunists

First ammendment it's also non compatible with most right wing snowflakes like Ben shitpiro and mike cernobitch

its really just a basic form of an idea ive been kicking around where you have a single guy in charge to keep things from devolving into rule of a dumb emotional majority and keeping people in charge to keep from devolving into rule of a despot. I think it could be possible to have the benefit of both without the drawbacks of either.

Modern liberals are authoritarian little fuckwits who don't actually like freedom.

Maybe it could be as simple as: the king makes laws, but the congress can veto if they get a 2/3 vote.

Modern leftism is authoritarianism under a thin veneer of free shit and the constantly out of reach goal of a post-scarcity Star Trek society.

As always Sup Forums doesn't understand the Constitution.

>Sup Forums doesn't understand the Constitution.
t. Sup Forums

I DECIDE WHAT HATE SPEECH IS!! :D

Respect the first, or meet the second, faggot. I'm not willing to pick the whiniest weakest sack of offended shit in town, figure out what few things don't offend that cow, and then use that as the standard for what speech is free and what isn't.

Modern liberals aren't liberal, they're leftist, and leftist are Authoritarian.

They don't care about freedom and liberty, they want a repressive communist-like nation.

I know you retarded niggers can't read cursive, and that the kikes write the AP test books, but come the fuck on. That is not the verbatim text of the 2nd Amendment.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

It always was. And they've always been anti-free speech. Cultural Marxism is the method to which you start enforcing speech, in the final form, which they are trying to enact, it becomes punishable by law.

It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to simplify the language to be more understandable but was obviously written by someone with anti-gun sentiments.

Was this always the case?

It was always the case. Leftist were never about being liberal.

The difference is they are finally being open about their marxist agenda.

townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-hate-speech-is-still-free-speech-n2343286
RIP in shit, faggot nigger kike spic gook chink slant sandnigger

forgot a few insults:
slav, irish, swede

The founding fathers could never have believed their country would be so fucked by the left. It was absolutely unheard of to them. That being said though, Free Speech should be reworked to allow the things it covers, hatred, inquisition etc. so that it can still do its job whilst not being undermined by Libel, slander etc laws.

>Dissenting opinion
Hate is irrational. There's a difference between a dissenting opinion and claiming you have the right to be hateful in your stereotype fallacies. Most liberals are strong supporters of free speech (ACLU, right to burn flag, political protests, anti-censorship, etc.) but not of speech that only serves to incite riots, foment hostility. The Kremlin want to demoralize and destabilize and they're abusing America's free speech rights to promote hate speech in the US. Right wing conservatives must reject these propaganda campaigns and efforts by Putin to engage in his cultural Marxism on social media.

Not sure what part of this concept is so difficult to understand?

>living in a world where it only matters what your government does
youre a fucking retard

Socialism is the worst possible option in any situation. It offers the worst of all possible options (slavery) at an enormous cost (everything you own and your entire ability to voluntarily advance your own well being). Therefore, in order for socialism to thrive, all opposing ideas must be brutally suppressed. Even the most rudimentary philosophy can handily defeat socialism in an open debate and therefore, all open debate must be destroyed if socialism is to survive.

Socialism doesn't cause censorship. At root, socialism IS censorship.

Leftists are smart enough to know that once you've used a tool like free speech protections to obtain power, you need to dismantle that tool so that others cannot use it against you.

Take gays as an example. Imagine the world today if the men of the 50's and 60's had responded to gay demands for the repeal of anti-sodomy laws or to demands for gay marriage rights by simply banning that speech. Call it obscene and be done with it, easy enough to do. But gays today largely support groups that will either ban anti-gay speech, or which act to ruin people who publicly speak against homosexuality in other ways. They don't feel any obligation to give people the protections they benefited from.

Feminists, blacks, jews, muslims, mexicans, all of them basically react the same way. Free speech for me, not for thee, and we don't care that white men died to protect these rights for all. They imagine whites' ancestors as vicious colonial genocidal slavemasters and their own ancestors as put-upon sainted victims.

>if you are boycotted

Oh, goyims....

congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720

>"Why is the First Ammendment incompatible with modern liberals and leftism?"

Three things.
- Having a strong desire to control other people
- Feeling your ideas are absolutely correct
- Being unable to defend these ideas in the open marketplace of ideas

Anti-semitism is a form of racism and hate speech

ah hahahaha

hahahaha ahhhh hahaha

They can't believe in fundamental rights because they're atheist. Why would you believe in these rights? A right isn't a real thing. If you think it's better overall to not respect a right, that's what you'd do. You have to concede something to religion in order to privilege a right over a temporary expediency. What your really doing is privileging something above your own rational sense. And so even if atheist libertarians care about these rights, that makes them at least somewhat religious compared to leftists who are atheist and materialist in the strongest sense.

Read Industrial Society And Its Future

In the US, it's already fairly well covered by SCOTUS decisions.

A Jewish lawyer for the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of the United States to march in a community that was over 50% Jewish whilst in uniform and bearing the Swastika. The Nazis won that case. Hate speech is free speech in the US.

Hummm, so the swastika is to the leftist as the cross is to a vampire.

the first is an illusion of freedom nothing more than a tool for clandestine despotism. you cling to your "rights". your gonna need them when you bitch about the societal decay they've been used to create.

Who gets to define what's hate speech?

What the fuck is even "hate speech"?

those who are skilled enough to use their free speech to define and convince others what it is.

That's some serious Orwellian doublespeak you've got going there. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Fuck off.

I think you mean those who want a full throated fight on their hands.

Because they are incompatible with the truth. It's their kryptonite.

Speech that offends someone, somewhere. Or potentially could. Even if no one is offended, don't worry, a leftist will jump in and be offended on someone else's behalf.

ACLU today would never take that case

You'd be surprised. There are still some free speech absolutists in that organization. There are some fucking retards as well.

Liberalism is pure power-seeking, any statement about rights etc. is just a pretext for power grabbing which can be reversed in the future as needed for further power-seeking.

>Remember goy, pornography is speech! (I don't actually care that much about porn, this is just the argument the New Left used)
>ok, so can I say nigger then?
>NO goy that's hate speech! Hate speech isn't free speech!

>Dat flag

>Dat communist doublespeak

Holy flying dogshit, were the leftists ever NOT a parody of them selves?

It really does depend on individual right, north korea as an example

>what we need is a benevolent dictatorship, a philosopher king if you will
kek, people have been saying this shit since Plato.
But in reality you need an actual person to be a dictator not just Mary Sue fantasies.

The fundamental problem is transfer of power.
All dictators have been mortal and afterwards there is often a succession crisis. So even if you start off with a great dictator you have no guarantee such governance will continue indefinitely.

>You'd be surprised. There are still some free speech absolutists in that organization.
The fight to defend the right to Free Speech is not fought in your mild discussions at Thanksgiving dinner. It's fought when the government tries to cage you "free speech zones". It's fought when the government tries to put you in prison for what your eyes have gazed upon. The line of scrimmage is always the most extreme case and it's always controversial.

I spent several years in the Air Force at various bases volunteering for the color guard, rising the flag in the morning and taking it down at night. I learn a lot about the flag and the anthem, and why its important to let protestors burn it, or the freedoms the flag actually represents mean nothing.

So when Trump claims that disrespecting the flag is disrespecting the country, he's lying. And to add insult to lying-ass injury, he sells for profit t-shirts that have the America flag printed on them, a violation of actual flag code.

>There are some fucking retards as well.
There's some in every crowd. It's good that we can review bad decisions and avoid repeating them in the future.

>Liberalism is pure power-seeking,
The opposite is true. Liberalism is literally recognizing that people are the seat of political power and having a government that respects and protects their rights. Education people know this was the definition of liberalism of hundreds of years.

The stupidest people on the planet, however, decided that since conservatives is generally what whatever conservatives believed, welp, liberalism must be whatever the liberals believed. And they couldn't be more wrong. stupid. America was founded on the principles of liberalism. The Kremlin is probably wringing its hands with glee seeing that some Americans are so stupid they can turned against their own country so easily.

Watch this. All the Putinbot cockroaches will now take turns calling me a shill and a kike.

and what happens when the result of personal freedom is a rejection of the responsibility that is required for it to work? the hand out state. if people's individual rights should be pursued why shouldn't they have the right to vote for who should run things while there busy in the day to day? so surely democracy is must for individual rights are a must. and if we have democracy why wouldn't we have people demanding more rights? the only thing that matters is freedom and freedom is founded on individual rights?
but whats to stop them from handing off the torch of personal responsibility to someone else? what's there to stop the worker from demanding the right to own the means of production? they crate the goods its their RIGHT the workers demand to own the means of production it gives them freedom to determine their own destiny its gives them liberty. if all individuals have the right to govern the state, then sovereignty must be vested in the people, the people must wield all sovereignty and not merely a part of it. and that means communism.

modern liberalism is an invasion tactic.

>Why is the First Ammendment incompatible with modern liberals and leftism?
Because everything triggers them and hurts their feelings.

>Was this always the case?
Not with classically liberalism. Classically liberalism is dead and the leftist killed it.

Americuck strikes again.

*classical liberalism

>They can't believe in fundamental rights because they're atheist. Why would you believe in these rights? A right isn't a real thing. If you think it's better overall to not respect a right, that's what you'd do. You have to concede something to religion in order to privilege a right over a temporary expediency. What your really doing is privileging something above your own rational sense.
I've been on Sup Forums for 5 years and this is clearly the most retarded, dishonest claptrap I've ever read.

Atheists don't believe in made-up gods. However, they CAN believe in anything else they want to believe in.

> And so even if atheist libertarians care about these rights, that makes them at least somewhat religious
Why are theists always so desperate to rationalize their irrational beliefs? We are born with our human rights, the rights we decided upon as men. Despite what you may have read, they are not doled out to us by some benevolent/malevolent deity.

>compared to leftists who are atheist and materialist in the strongest sense.
>classic mistake of associating unrelated leftism and materialism to non-belief
There are ten of millions of right wing conservatives who are atheist, we just don't run around telling everybody. I'm atheist, but I still attend church with my family every Sunday. I don't for a moment think the universe was created 6000 years ago, or that there was really an Adam and Eve, or in dragons or talking donkeys. That's all nonsense.

>Hate Speech
>Hate
Anger. Antipathy. Righteous outrage. Opposition of any sorts...
They term anything they dislike hate. The angrier it makes people the more perverse credibility you create for your policy if you allow them to determine the definition of hate. 'Any negative emotion'.
Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell was about this. He sat in a storage cupboard at BBC House where he worked ('Aunty' as the BBC refers to itself) and lampooned them as Big Brother.
Liberalism = the following of images. Reason is not required, in fact it's positively hateful if such things are left to librals to determine.
This is it. The whole timeline is the real Happening.

Leftism is LITERALLY the ideology of self-importance disguised as the opposite. It is literally baseless 'i'm-better-than-you-ism.'

after seeing the ai threads it really wouldnt surprise me if all talk shows post-2008 were written by an ai and modern liberals are literally being trained by dogs through their televsion
also its no secret most of reddit and twitter is bots shilling products or fraudulently liking blue checked users

*literally being trained like dogs by their televisions and phones

>thats exactly what the second amendment says on the document that still exists and is fully viewable

no nice bait post though

this guy gets it.
freedom is founded on personals rights
more rights more freedom
so now days people demand more and more rights including the right to not be offended modern day liberalism is the logical conclusion of classical liberalism and individualism.

HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH

FUCK MARXIST COMMUNIST SCUM

Modern "liberals" are Marxists who repurposed the moniker to act as saboteurs.

Assuming you're not a troll, read the text of the Heller decision. It comprehensively and straightforwardly debunks the "collective" notion of the right to bear arms.

>slavshit mick soyboy
ftfy

You Nazis won’t be able to call for violence much longer in your hate speech hugboxes. We are coming for your precious constitution and we will wipe our asses with it. Anyone who calls for violence against another group of people should be behind bars America has no place for your hate filled hearts. May god save you.

ok the right is right here we were wrong. most of us thought are right were just stupid vulgar assholes and were just trying to keep the peace. but now I realize that you need to learn the consequences and so if you start running off your idiot noises hole and people beat you unconscious, that it's a learning experience and I'm not you momma. and I have no obligations if you end up face down in a ditch full of water or with sever lead poisoning. I owe you nothing. I can just walk away.

Yes.

First because it silenced immorality
Then because it protected truth.

They're Marxists