Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
My point then would be -- does the 1st amend also require insurance? We have an entire generation of "victimized" snowflakes requiring long-term medical care as a result of someone's right to free speech. Hence the growing leftist movement to classify all "objectionable" 1st amendment speech as "hate speech." Apparently by your response to me, you may be joining their cause. I hope not.
I asked a legitimate question. Sorry if I upset you.
|
I agree that the first amendment gives us the right to speak freely on many issues regardless of whether or not they are politically correct or offend someone else's religion, or sensibilities in other ways.
I also agree that "free speech" does not imply "irresponsible speech", or "deceitful speech" or slander.
As far as regulations relating to the 1st amendment I have already responded to this saying that the "fair play" law gave Garrison the right to respond to the attacks made against him on NBC and was given equal time. As a result the entire country swung in their opinion on the JFK assassination. It was a huge victory for "free speech". But since then the government did away with this law. I think that was the beginning of this very hateful, irresponsible "fake media". I would like to return to that law. Any station that attacks an individual, whether it is Roger Stone, or Donald Trump, or Al Gore should have the right, by law to respond with equal time on the same station.
That is not true of policies and ideas. Just because I disagree with Fox News on some topic doesn't mean they need to give me equal time, that would be chaotic. Only if the attack is on a specific person that can be identified by a reasonable person.