They do not particularly understand the 1st Amendment or the reasoning behind it, the writings behind it
Stunning numbers among Dems in RCOR's new poll on free speech and censorship:
47% of Dems say free speech should be legal 'only under certain circumstances.
34% of Dems say Americans 'have too much freedom'
75% of Dems say government has a responsibility to censor 'hateful'…
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) September 24, 2023
Pretty sure that the 1st restricts government from censoring speech. The full tweet leads to this Real Clear Politics article
“Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment protections for freedom of speech is a good thing, while only 9% think it is a bad thing,” said pollster Spencer Kimball, who directed the RCP survey. “This is agreed upon across the demographics, like party affiliation, age, and race.”
For those who oppose censorship and put a premium on the free flow of ideas, that’s the good news. But there is bad news, too. Inevitably in our nation’s current hyper-partisan political environment, when one bores down on this subject, deeply divergent perspectives emerge — partisan differences.
Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey.
Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%.
They were taught this in government schools, but, probably haven’t considered that the tiger they’re feeding can turn on them in a heartbeat
But the most glaring gap is between conservatives and liberals, i.e., between Republicans and Democrats. On the issue of free expression, at least, Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats, the party launched by Thomas Jefferson — the Founding Father who famously said that if he were forced to choose between “a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
This is not really new, unlike what the article says: Democrats have been building to this for decades, but, especially in the 20th Century
Republican voters (74%) and independents (61%) believe speech should be legal “under any circumstances, while Democrats are almost evenly divided. A bare majority of Democrats (53%) say speech should be legal under any circumstances, while 47% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances.”
Yes, the Democrat response is beyond disturbing, but, the response from Republicans and Independents is not good, either.
Poll respondents were read this statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Only 31% of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with that sentiment, compared to 51% of Republicans.
The tagline of this little blog says “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” I truly believe that. I’ll fight for your ability to say stuff, even if I am vehemently against it.
Sure, they agreed with the general principle; it’s just when you get to the details that things bog down, right? If you didn’t click on the tweet, you missed further down, “75% of Dems say government has a responsibility to censor ‘hateful’ social media posts”. So, who defines ‘hateful’ social media posts? The left, at least 76% of them, would be just fine, thank you very much, if it was the Biden Administration, and its left-wing minions, but would they say that if Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis took the White House on January 20, 2025? Then ‘hateful’ social media posts could be defined as anything promoting homosexuality or transgenderism, or supporting the war in Ukraine, or any of a whole host of other things.
Add that to the ones who are against the Second Amendment, and we gave a bunch of brown shirts running around..
from the RCO article:
There ARE those who feel ANY restriction on speech violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against that concept (see above). I’m a liberal and pretty much agree with the status quo (see above). How about Deep Fake videos? Should that be protected speech? If the Dems leaked a video of Russian hookers “leaking” on Trump?
We cannot legislate against the gullibility of conservative Americans to believe charlatans like Trump, Greene, Gaetz, Giuliani, McCarthy etc. The defense against liars in power is still truth – over and over and over. Identify the lie and refute it. Again and again. If that isn’t adequate, so be it – America will be lost. Without question, the new populist media makes that more difficult. For every “legitimate” news source we have dozens of Coves, Pundits, Breitbarts, Epochs, Newsmaxs spreading right-wing myths and outright lies. But remember: The Earth is not flat, Global warming is real, Vaccines aren’t deadly, Hillary didn’t sell US uranium to Russia, Obama wasn’t born in Kenya, Biden isn’t receiving millions from Zelenskyy, Trump didn’t win in 2020, Ukraine is not a NeoNazi stronghold…
NuConservatism is no longer the conservatism of Reagan, McCain and Bush, but is now the movement of aggrievement, retribution and owning the libs. It is no accident that the esteemed “libertarian” Mr Dana suggests that a President Trump or DeeSantis would ban speech promoting LGBTQism or support for Ukraine! NuCons always project. Always.
Mr Teach ignores some other troubling results: half of GOP voters favor censorship; with 50% (Republicans) believing the government has a responsibility to restrict hateful posts.
There is little doubt America has a problem with the current social media stampede. Even 50% of conservaties agree! But how to corral this is an issue that both sides recognize, but see no clear solutions.
The R stands for Rimjob.
#TheStenchFromAffton#Ewww
#Trump+10!
Bwaha! Lolgf
So, what happened to Galera Therapeutics? It’s 52-week high was $3.5900, and it’s now down to $0.1733, though it went up slightly after hours to $0.1790. It has lost 95.17% of its value, and Yahoo Finance has it rated as ‘Overvalued.’ Yet there were 2,935,157 shares traded today, and that’s lower than the average daily volume of 3,313,741 shares, so somebody is buying it.
Hey, you could buy a 100 share lot for less than $18.00, and become Mr Keene’s boss! If you can afford to possibly lose $180, you could buy 1,000 shares!
3 years ago shares were selling at around $14.
Ask Rimjob he knows what happened.
They were touting some cancer drug that didn’t work. Share prices cratered after someone checked the math on their so-called drug trials.
Rimjob “retired”.
#TheStenchFromAfftonMoHadMathProblems
Bwaha! Lolgf
Mr Pico doesn’t know what he is talking about. But what’s new?
The shares might be options. Then at 17 cents, you can’t lose much.
But the company only has one drug that is basically worthless in clinical medicine. Nothing else in the pipeline. When the troll first started here it was in the 20s.
But the thing is, the first comment from the troll was “boy I am rich”. For some reason that was one of the more offensive statements I have heard on the internet, until he started calling wives whores and taunting a critical I’ll guy with death.
The man from Missouri asked:
Yes.
About the only thing worse than lies on the internet is having government bureaucrats deciding what is and is not allowable speech.
Our sage from St Louis wrote:
Yet, at least on this fine site, you are, and have been for a long time, able to publish your rebuttals without censorship. Do you think that, if I criticized an article by Chad Malloy, a
manmale who thinks he’s a woman, on The New York Times that the Times would allow it at all, or, if they did, require that it be edited to call him “Parker” Malloy, the faux name he now uses? Do you believe that our major media would allow real criticism of ‘Pride’ festivals? Heck, The Philadelphia Inquirer now censors all references to race in crime reports, including the ones that they take directly from Philadelphia Police Department press releases.[…] now we come to a Poll by Real Clear Politics, also covered by William Teach, in which we are told that, “Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment […]
In denial, dems shitting themselves. Making excuses.
Trump by 10.
A poll. A “beautiful” poll.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-calls-own-poll-showing-trump-beating-biden-ten-outlier
#LGBFJB
#Trump2024
Bwaha! Lolgf
Priceless-“for every legitimate nes source we have dozens of Coves, Pundits, Breitbarts, Epochs, Newsmax., spreading right wing myths and lies..”. Just like global warming, do you have any evidence to back that up? Or evidence that the “legitimate” news sources that you mention are always legitimate? Of course you don’t. J does his sweeping, unsupported, over-generalizations and thinks he’s making a point. He’s just proving that he doesn’t have a point..except it’s a perfect demonstration of starting an “argument” with a false premise and going from there.
Oh, Jill! Are you back to denying that the globe is warming, LOL? You have always been a bit squishy. You were an absolute denier but now sometimes acknowledge warming but claim the scientists have cooked the data.
The “legit” media makes mistakes but attempts to be correct! The conservative media intentionally lies. They make no attempt to tell the truth. Connies hardly consider FOX to be reliably right-wing since they had to tell the truth occasionally when sued for hundreds of millions.
Right wingers believe so much BS that they’ve lost touch with reality!! LOL.
Did Donald Trump receive more votes than Joe Biden in 2020?
Is atmospheric CO2 causing the Earth to warm?
Is the Earth billions of years old?
Do you have proof/evidence of a God, gods, angels or demons?
Did Covid infections kill some 1 million Americans?
Do more guns equal less crime?
Do the Covid vaccines kill more than they save?
Is Joe Biden receiving millions from Ukraine and China?
In fact, most of what we argue about here is right-wing mis- and disinformation.
Poor J, as said before , never denied warming l just how much and why. I know this is a difficult concept for you, but please keep up.
“Legit media makes mistakes but attempts to correct..”. J can’t see the forest for the trees-you again start with the false premise that they’re legit to begin with and go from there. You haven’t shown that, nor that the other organizations you list are not “legit”. Nor have you defined what “legit” means. Other than that, great job! We’ll go over your ridiculous examples in another post..
Teach will you fight for the right of frag queens to say stuff to kids?
Teach
Are you advocating for the right of frag queens to read books to kids?
Does hate speech contribute to violence?
Should drag queens have the right to read porn stories in public libraries ?
Who should decide attendance, parents or BIG GOVERNMENT
Through the hookah haze…
https://www.takimag.com/article/no-straight-lines-in-gay-geometry/
#FragQueens&Rimjobs
#Bwaha! Lolgf
The kids are fighting back.
https://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2023/09/25/teach-your-children-well-5/
#TranniesAreTerroristDragQueens&Rimjobs
Bwaha! Lolgf
Didn’t a past president of the US and the presumptive candidate for 2024 campaign against the legitimate media?
Said Mr Trump recently:
Do Trump’s pronouncements bother you at all?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-calls-own-poll-showing-trump-beating-biden-ten-outlier
#Trump+10
Bwaha! Lolgfy
Poor J still hasn’t proved his “legit media” is ……..actually legit. Nor that the others aren’t. Sounds like another global warming debate..all assertions, no evidence..
But of course, Dems, lefties, and commies in general oppose free speech. Particularly if it doesn’t conform to their ideas. If you harbor a differing opinion to theirs and express it, you’re committing ‘hate speech’. Terrible idea for a free country. If the perverts want to spout their vile rhetoric to minor children, then the community has no obligation to provide a forum or an audience. The parents should protect their children. There should be no social obligation to condone or approve of such ideas. However it is not for the state to prevent or allow such behavior.
The Constitution spells this out in the first amendment, this is not the realm of our government. Unfortunately, most Dems have little actual knowledge of the text of the Constitution, including some members of SCOTUS. This is probably due to the public education system.
[…] now we come to a Poll by Real Clear Politics, also covered by William Teach, in which we are told that, “Overall, 9 in 10 voters in the U.S. think First Amendment […]
I am a conservative but I do not defend the right of someone to say things designed to inflame passions based on lies; distortions; and by torturing the truth. With every right there are responsibilities and consequences. Remember “Hands up, Don’t Shoot?”
Sorry the asswipes that repeated that lie should be boiled in oil. They knew what they were doing and anyone who defended these lies was a communist-racist or worse.
The same for those who claim parents have no right to defend their children against groomers in academia. Defend them? Cut out their tongues. If they wish to make a clase for grooming children fine but that isn’t what they wish to do, they wish to censor people to control speech.
Use the same tactics that your enemy mandates. See how they like it.