DescentBB

Majority of Democrats, 37 Percent of Republicans Want to Repeal First Amendment

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... harles-c-w

When I read stuff like this, it kind of strikes me as unrealistic. Something went wrong with the sample.

I read that YouGov did the poll, so I looked them up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouGov

They're a marketing firm that puts out opinion polls. When hear this I think of spinning questions. Their findings aren't peer reviewed. They get paid to ask people questions. These questions are like advertizing. You get your message out in the form of a question.

An extreme example would be:


A) Would you repeal the first amendment if it meant saving the lives of 100 children?

B)Would you kill 100 children?

Put a question like that in front of 40,000 people and one group will vote more one way that the other, no matter what.

If there was an aspect of the first amendment I would change, it would be making it apply only to living breathing thinking people, who can be made to own up to what they say and do. Meaning, it will not apply to ideas like "corporations" or any other thing that can't think or take responsibility for its actions. I guess that should apply to basically any rights outlined in the law or constitution, if an entity cannot be thrown in jail for violating the rights of others, then it cannot have any such rights for itself.

Krom wrote:If there was an aspect of the first amendment I would change, it would be making it apply only to living breathing thinking people, who can be made to own up to what they say and do. Meaning, it will not apply to ideas like "corporations" or any other thing that can't think or take responsibility for its actions. I guess that should apply to basically any rights outlined in the law or constitution, if an entity cannot be thrown in jail for violating the rights of others, then it cannot have any such rights for itself.

I would argue that, in a proper America, your stipulation isn't needed because that is what the amendment already says if you objectively explore its creation, intent and the contemporaneous context therein.

I understand the courts have bastardized that and I see their failure as shoving the camels nose, head, neck and part of its torso into the tent.

Incorporation only protects the owners and operators from personal liability, the corporation itself can be sued and held responsible for any breach of law.

If you removed the 2nd from applying to corporations, how would legal council operate if the entity faces a lawsuit?

You can’t give something all of the obligations of a person, then deny any given rights of a person.

Suing a corporation is going to make them stop breaking the law? In what fantasy universe are we speaking of here?

Lawsuits aren’t designed to stop people from breaking the law, your point was taking responsibility…was it not?

If you want to get into preventing people from breaking the law, that would be a different subject.

Sometimes, it's impossible to stop people from breaking the law, especially if they don't think the law applies to them in specific cases. Not even the threat of punishment or prison is a deterrent. Just look at the death penalty. There are still murders going on despite the threat of capital punishment and death.