What The ..............F
- Thread starter LordRaikage
- Start date
- Status
CloyEscapade
Active member
LustyLover
Active member
Awards
Umari Senju
Active member
Hmm... Another terrible thread about how gays and anything non hetero is bad.
Claiming they are infringing your right to free speech is it? Have any of you ACTUALLY read the entirety of the 1st Amendment?
Here let me help you:
Now I know it's a wall of text so, OP and those like him, pay attention to the part in bold as this pertains directly to what you're complaining about.
In Summary:
You're welcomed to your views, but YouTube is not violating you right to free speech. Indeed, they are simply exercising there own by not allowing speech that is deemed by the constitution, hateful and therefore dangerous.
Now kindly STFU and stop posting all these anti gay threads please. :scorps:
Claiming they are infringing your right to free speech is it? Have any of you ACTUALLY read the entirety of the 1st Amendment?
Here let me help you:
Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference. - See more at:
Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ''from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.''6 That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''7
- See more at:
You must be registered for see links
Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ''from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.''6 That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''7
- See more at:
You must be registered for see links
Now I know it's a wall of text so, OP and those like him, pay attention to the part in bold as this pertains directly to what you're complaining about.
In Summary:
You're welcomed to your views, but YouTube is not violating you right to free speech. Indeed, they are simply exercising there own by not allowing speech that is deemed by the constitution, hateful and therefore dangerous.
Now kindly STFU and stop posting all these anti gay threads please. :scorps:
Last edited:
nkengekelly
Member
ok what the **** why are guys talking Government and religion this is a naruto anime/ manga fan site!
nkengekelly
Member
talk about actual anime & manga no cares about your fuuuuuuuuuking personal beliefs people so shut the f up
LordRaikage
Active member
If you want to discuss Naruto then go to the Naruto section. This is the general section about different topics unrelated to Naruto.
jiraiya lives
Active member
and to think about the level of discrimination that Rapesexuals face.... oh wait
You must be registered for see images
Lightbringer
Active member
I honestly never heard youtube talk about free speech. They're a private entity so they can set whatever standards they like. Not that I agree with them, but that's capitalism.
- Status