Extensions to Freedoms of Speech and Press
Alex M (Coyo)
Public
Seen by 14
Should we amend the bill of rights to include explicitly enumerated constitutional protections if the Freedoms of Speech and Freedoms of the Press to include such things as file-sharing, social networking, and notice updates?
Should Twitter feeds be treated the same as news agencies? Should Blogs have specific enumerated rights and protections against incrimination?
Should libel, slander, defamatory speech, hateful speech, riot incitement and other forms of controversial be strictly limited in a constitutional amendment to protect the freedoms of speech and the press?
Alex M (Coyo)
Thu 25 Apr 2013 4:57PM
The Bill of Rights needs to be bolstered and updated.
I do not think it is feasible AT ALL to rewrite the constitution completely.
It is already a very tall order to attempt pushing through constitutional amendments. Rewriting is impossible.
Amanda Johnson
Fri 26 Apr 2013 3:00PM
I would just broaden this to include all of the first amendment. As people use the internet for more activism, one day online protest and assembly will need to be protected. Separation of church and state needs to be more explicit as well.
GI Jack
Sat 27 Apr 2013 4:34AM
because.
Zacqary Adam Green
Mon 29 Apr 2013 9:32PM
I support this in principle. We need to come up with what it should specifically say, though.
Amanda Johnson Sat 27 Apr 2013 1:26AM
I am interpreting him as limiting things like libel and slander.
Benjamin Lyon Sat 27 Apr 2013 4:19AM
Then what is libel and slander? Better yet, who gets to define it? We already have defamation laws.
Nick Sat 27 Apr 2013 5:12AM
@benjaminlyon I would think we would just use the current legal definitions. Its not like we are rewriting law from scratch.
Amanda Johnson Sun 28 Apr 2013 1:28PM
BL What ND said, also the purpose of this is to expand first amendment protections. Protect more speech and to restrict how people can sue for libel and slander. Right now people try to do so just for negative reviews.
Alex M (Coyo) Mon 29 Apr 2013 6:14AM
'This is suppose to expand freedom of speech, but you are proposing limitations at the same time.'
I am limiting PUNISHMENTS against acts of libel, slander, hate speech, etc.
In other words, I'm proposing to ADD PROTECTIONS to controversial speech as part of free speech.
As some pirates have aptly put it, "The answer to bad free speech is not censorship, but MORE free speech."
Benjamin Lyon · Fri 26 Apr 2013 6:20PM
I am a bit concerned about the first paragraph. This is suppose to expand freedom of speech, but you are proposing limitations at the same time. Also how do you define some of these things? Infractions of libel, slander, hate speech, defamatory speech, fighting words, riot incitement and incitement to criminal behavior.
The first reminds me of the Libel Laws in the United Kingdom. Sometimes someone will bring criticizes snake oil salesmen for their practices, they can be sued as a way to keep them quiet.
I can see possible parallels for the US for the others as well. I want to expand freedom of speech, but I can't agree to detracting it at the same time.