[Reason] More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights

They're free to think that

 

I am one of those people who believe we have too many civil liberties. I believe people should not have the right to think that.

 

Maybe they just don't want Citizens United decision.

While free speech is dangerous, taking it away is more dangerous.

 

Basically Americans want to be able to say what they want, but don't want others to have that right.

 

More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights ... says the people who are exercising their right to free speech.

 

This is why we need....

PATRIOTIC EDUCATION

 

I read the whole article at the link and tried to clicked in the link to the survey and what I didn’t see were what were the exact questions asked. With stuff like this I’m guessing the phrasing of the questions might have a lot of affect on wha type of answers are given.

 

Just imagine if the took away the right to copy and paste.

 

10 out of 10 idiots think they can post what they want online.

 

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -- George Carlin

 

Basically

Any society needs CORE RIGHTS
Rights that are not parsed into nothingness

Rocket River

 

manually typing in that X address everytime I have the urge to post misinformation would be daunting.

 

I was pretty much free speech no matter what growing up, even for stupid ass reasons.

Over the last decade I've come to the realization that the internet (and the free international megaphone it provides) has changed the math in that regard. People will believe something, something that is demonstrably untrue, but will believe it 100% as fact due to misinformation and it's not just the fringe, then it snowballs into an acceptable belief. The recent furor over vaccines really drove that point home to me when I was trying to get my immunocompromised aunt to take it, but she "read on the internet". Her like minded friends bought into the same s**t so I (and her doctor) were fighting a losing battle.

Free speech has clearly become more dangerous than it used to be. I still support it, but I also acknowledge peoples concerns.

 

Pretty crappy of the REASON article to focus on "free speech" when the First Amendment is much broader: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition ("protest"). The 53% figure is somewhat misleading unless further broken down. It would be much more interesting to ask what specific restrictions people support and why.

For example:

• Should Congress make laws respecting an establishment of religion? (It somewhat has.)
  
• Should Congress make laws restricting certain types of protest? (It has.)
• Should Congress make laws restricting certain types of speech? (It has and generally people support these restriction.) <--- this itself might render the poll pretty useless overall

And so on...


https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/national-speech-index-july-2024

The First Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 225 years ago. This is what it says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Based on your own thoughts about the First Amendment, can you tell us what you think about the following
statement: “The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.”

Response Frequency Percent
Does not describe my thoughts at all 465 47

Slightly describes my thoughts 95 9
Somewhat describes my thoughts 161 16
Mostly describes my thoughts 161 16
Describes my thoughts completely 118 12
​

 

People believed a lot of nonsense before the advent of the internet... perhaps more.

 

Click bait stuff from REASON nothing more.

 

The court has liberalized speech rights by watering down corruption and campaign donation laws (Citizens United), and has given corporations rights as people.

That has been the bedrock for the Golden Age of White Collar crime this millenium.

Congress should pass laws against social media giants even if it's for SCROTUS to shoot down. Better off knowing what legal justifications in place than doing nothing and pretending public discourse as it is today is a-ok

 

The issue with our society is that we have moved from a space where
we needed to protect the physically weak from the physically strong
to
where we needs to protect the socially/mentally/emotionally weak from the socially/mentally/emotionally strong
and
we have no idea how to do that
So . . .we simply blame them (the socially/mentally/emotionally weak) for their own issues
This allows manipulaters/grifters/conmen/vile humans/criminals and general vile individuals to prosper

We see evil and allow it because . . .. it's wrong but they "did it the right way"
They didn't "technically" break the law or social norms. . . they simply violated the spirit and meaning of it every which way possible
while still "technically" only bending the rules

that is our society . . . if you can socially/mentally/emotionally bully someone into doing something . .. it's ok

More and More Laws and rules are made to fence in the cattle
so they know where they are when they want to slaughter them
Multi-Tiered justice systems serves the slaughterers

We make rules like don't steal but we allow various kinds of stealing
or say its not AS WRONG .. . even if it violates far more people
and is far more crippling to society

These rules are meant to protect the rule breakers from those who follow the rules
and to keep those who follow the rules from being legit competition to the rule breakers

i.e. i can slap you . . because I know you won't hit back because of your strong moral code
I can be an intolerant boob and then cuck you by trying to force you to not violate you own code against intolerance. . . . you HAVE to tolerate me .. . and if you don't then I can hit you with the ole "You're no better than me" line . . . .even though I force the situation

Rocket River

 

No - I suspect that THEY didn't wish THEY had fewer civil liberties, THEY wish OTHERS had fewer liberties.

There is lies the rub - people are often divided down political lines - they are fine with their side raiding the Capitol or burning and looting ... but not when someone they don't like does it.

Reality and knowledge has become extremely "relative" - from alternative facts, to some trans activists arguing that a man can be a biological female.

All of this is setting up for a "cult of personality" show down, where someone takes power and greatly expands their control into the "dictator realm".

While Trump is the flavor of the day right now - and has certainly used rhetoric and acted in ways that go beyond that or prior President's, we are just as likely to end up with someone in the liberal side of the pool taking advantage of the current climate.

The Trump supporters think it is all fun and games now that he is the one that exposed it as an option - and the left doesn't think it will be possibly their side that does it - but it is ripe to happen, I would guess the last time this was possible was the Great Depression.​