Actually, that would be an exercise in stifling their free speech.
Agreed. The constitutional process has to be followed. We might still disagree with the amendment, but if the proper process is followed, itās law just the same.
She gave an opinion.
One with which I agree.
Not sure what either of you base it upon. Unless thereās another article elsewhere that gets deeper in the weeds about it and provides details. I know that I could think of a few ways I wouldnāt mind seeing the constitution ārewrittenā, but I also know that what I mean by that is amended following the process that the constitution itself lays out for it. Itās quite difficult to do, and for damn good reason.
With re writing the 1st Ammendment , we will destroy part of what makes the U.S. great. The freedom to have and publish opposing viewpoints. Can anyone imagine what news would look like, if only the NY Times ,Washington Post and the LA Times would be the only newspapers allowed? Or TV news would only come from CNN, CNBC or MSNBC ??
This would exceed Orwells 1984.
Literature would have to be " edited " to eliminate hate speech words in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn and other works of literature with sexual or gay references.
Everyone especially Liberals dhould be careful what you wish for,because you may be on the wrong end of it.
Hasnāt selective freedom of speech already been proposed by whining liberals?
If the constitutional process is followed, itās what America wants. But honestly, I think folks are making too big a deal out of something that stands such a very very slight chance of becoming reality. I predict that none of us will ever see a constitutional amendment in our lives.
Of course it has.
Our response should be to rein in unfettered legislative and judicial activism to return to Constitutional laws and courts, not to double down on our own unconstitutional activism by employing the same tactics.
1 Like