1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

US Department of Justice Refuses To Affirm First Amendment Rights

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Huricane, Jul 26, 2012.

Tags:
  1. Huricane

    Huricane Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    286
    In the video below Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, Thomas Perez Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights when asked by Congressman Trent Franks.

    Question - Should free speech be limited?
    It is limited in certain parts of the world.

    My opinion, freedom of speech is an absolute right, and you can not have an effective democracy with out it.

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0wwv9l6W8yc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
    #1 Huricane, Jul 26, 2012
  2. False

    False Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    99
    It's a loaded question. Free speech is limited in many ways already. What is he supposed to do, give a seminar on the modern limits of free speech?
     
    #2 False, Jul 26, 2012
  3. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    So you believe I should be able to say anything without repercussions? It should not be criminal for me to make threats to bomb a Church or Mosque? Or it should be legal to threaten to murder Jewish people?
     
    #3 Major, Jul 26, 2012
  4. Huricane

    Huricane Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    286
    The context of the question was clearly defined.
    These are issues that are being discussed in the United Nations with some members calling for criminalization of certain types of free speech.

    With the question being clearly defined, AAG Thomas Perez should have been able to answer that question since freedom is speak is guaranteed by the constitution.

    The limits that have been placed on free speech, direct calls to incite violence and leaking of classified /secret information were not within the scope of the question.
     
    #4 Huricane, Jul 26, 2012
  5. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    No it's not. Franks specifically says it's a new question with no context.
     
    #5 Major, Jul 26, 2012
  6. Huricane

    Huricane Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    286
    I do agree with you that, speech that advocates violence should have repercussions and should be illegal.

    Further, threats to harm someone and commit an act of violence is already criminal, so that is not even an issue for discussion.

    The freedom of speech question that is being asked is clearly defined and questions that were asked were not about speech that advocates or promotes violence.

    Congressman Trent Franks was strictly asking about the right to discuss different religions openly and freely.
     
    #6 Huricane, Jul 26, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2012
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Starting at 0:25, the government guys mentions context, and Franks specifically says there is no context and he's asking a new question.

    At 0:50, the government guy clearly states there is a problem because of threats/violence, and Franks ignores that and wants a blanket statement.

    At 1:30, the government guy again asks for context and Franks refuses to provide anything.

    As you said, there ARE legitimate restrictions on free speech, so free speech is NOT absolute. The question is a silly one because he wants a blanket yes or no answer, which is impossible.
     
    #7 Major, Jul 26, 2012
  8. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    Total free speech is bull****.
     
    #8 KingCheetah, Jul 26, 2012
  9. Huricane

    Huricane Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    286
    At the 1:15 mark, Congressman Trent Franks asks,
    "Here is my proposal, I'm proposing that you answer this question, will you tell us here today, that this administration’s Department of Justice, will never entertain, or advance a proposal, that criminalizes speech against any religion."

    The question is clearly defined and straight forward.
    The Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez referenced threats as a hypothetical scenario to avoid answering the question.
    Congressman Trent Franks followed up on the AAG Perez's statement be asking him the same question again so that the question no longer included the hypothetical scenario the AAG Perez previously included to avoid answering the question.
    Since the hypothetical scenario should was no longer a factor, AAG Perez should have been able to answer the question, but he still choice not to do so.
     
    #9 Huricane, Jul 26, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  10. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Will never entertain...

    yeah, this question is not too broad. it's just right.
     
    #10 Northside Storm, Jul 27, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  11. YallMean

    YallMean Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    3,815
    I will say this - that was a dumb and loaded question. Of course speech is limited. Certain speech like soliciting criminal acts from others is outside the constitution guarantee of free speech. That has been so held by the court. It's DOJ ilhas nothing to do with it. The court also siad that The government can regulate a content biased speeche with necessay means to serve a compelling purpose. Perez said what he should have said, without a context, that question cannot be answered.
     
    #11 YallMean, Jul 27, 2012
  12. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    16,173
    Likes Received:
    2,826
    He should have just said, "No, I cannot guarantee that the government will never entertain a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion. For example, if there was a proposal that criminalized threats to burn down Catholic churches, we would entertain it."
     
    #12 StupidMoniker, Jul 27, 2012
  13. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,049
    I know it when i see it
     
    #13 Invisible Fan, Jul 27, 2012
  14. YallMean

    YallMean Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    14,284
    Likes Received:
    3,815
    Well, Congressman Franks will probably say of course making criminal threats, libel, etc against religion is not what he meant, and Perez is disingenious in assumming that. He then will ask taking out things already forbidden by the criminal, libel, or any other law, will DOJ entertain . . .? Still withou context, that cannot be answered. The government determines as it sees fit a compelling purpose to regulate speech and it's up to the court to adjudicate. For political implications because of ignorance of 1st amendment r right by those such as OP, Perez should never say that line, and I think he responded properly. Nevertheless, I think Congressman Franks is stepping out of the line on this question on to the power of the executive branch. Maybe Perez should have just said mind your own business.
     
    #14 YallMean, Jul 27, 2012
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page