Democrat Party Out to Gut the 1st Amendment

[The Big Dog]

HR 1 of the new Congress is as outrageous an attack on the First Amendment as one will every see.

It bears the Orwellian name of "For the People Act." With an insipid name like that you are sure to know it is a total scam.

Even the ACLU felt compelled to weigh in:

"If enacted, they would violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. Unless those provisions are fixed, we will oppose H.R. 1 and recommend that members of Congress vote against it."

-the ACLU

The leftist grifters in the House are the greatest threat to fundamental human rights of speech and association in the United States today.

 

[Belz...]

Democratic party.

Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?

 

[theprestige]

Democratic party.

Delicious tears.

Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?

House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.

ETA: Here's the text.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text

It's a long-ass bill, though, so I think TBD still owes us some specifics.

 

[Ranb]

HB 1 of the new Congress is as outrageous an attack on the First Amendment as one will every see.

Did you mean H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1

It's a big bill. Which parts don't you like?

Ranb

 

[ahhell]

House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.

Sure, but if someone is going to make claim they ought to at least try and provide some information about that claim. At least enough that might interest me in googling it.

 

[Belz...]

House Bill 1 of the current Congress (the 116th, by the way), named the For the People Act, turns out to be ridiculously easy to google.

Maybe but when making a thread it's customary and polite to ensure that everyone knows what you're talking about.

I'm also not reading all that legalese. What's it about?

 

[Ranb]

https://www.aclu-tn.org/congress-le...o-we-can-enact-the-bills-much-needed-reforms/

As currently drafted, the For the People Act of 2019 violates the First Amendment rights of American citizens and public-interest organizations.

Members of Congress are expected to vote this week on H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019. There is a lot to like about the bill.

The ACLU's letter;
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-house-rules-committee-hr-1

 

[theprestige]

Did you mean H.R.1 - For the People Act of 2019?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1

Congress.gov refers to it as House Bill 1 in the URL you provided.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe but when making a thread it's customary and polite to ensure that everyone knows what you're talking about.

I'm also not reading all that legalese. What's it about?

The first few sections in the table of contents seem to be about voter registration and access to the polls. But I gave up before I even got through the TOC.

So yeah, I'm in the "TBD owes us more detail" camp on this one.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is a fine article outlining the numerous problems with the idiotic bill, beyond its gloriously stupid name:

you tax dollars will subsidize politicians you do not like

"Violating your First Amendment rights isn’t “for the people.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization typically in support of the policies advanced by the Democratic Party, opposes this bill because of the many provisions in H.R. 1 that would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.”

 

[Belz...]

Ah, so the bill tries to help people vote but is not worded properly and thus could be seen to violate the First Amendment rights of some groups.

Thanks TBD. I didn't actually expect you to misrepresent the issue so badly.

 

[Ranb]

Congress.gov refers to it as House Bill 1 in the URL you provided.

The text I wrote is copy/paste from the link I provided.

 

[varwoche]

I'm sort of glad that the opening post is the opening post -- free of topic drift and what have you -- so I can get on a fog-free soapbox for a moment...

The OP is finely distilled example of a particular style of posting that I hold in low regard. I don't object to the insults directed at a group of people per se. Nor do I object to citing a third party opinion about the measure. What's objectionable is the lack of a citation to the text in question. And even then, a mere link doesn't cut it. I want to see a quote of the precise text that is considered objectionable, without having to click through a series of Bacon-esque links. It's a recipe for non-communicative posturing.

"The measure doesn't say that."
"Yes it does, you didn't read it".
"Yes I did and...". Etc.

By default, I trust the ACLU more than I trust the Democrats. I won't be surprised if, once I read up, that I agree with the OP/ACLU. Still, I don't think it's a lot to ask that when someone claims that text T is objectionable, that T be quoted.

ADD: Funny enough, I composed this before there were any replies to the OP. See what I mean?

 

[The Big Dog]

Free speech analysis of the monstrous power grab

The democrats will gut the right to free speech and slap you in the face with an insipid name while doing it.

 

[This is The End]

So ironic that this thread is just days after a Republican, in a much higher position of power, literally attacked the First Amendment directly (as well as the 6th).

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article227203134.html

Twice in the past two weeks, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has written alarming opinions that call into question fundamental constitutional protections. In one, he disputed the right to counsel for those accused of crimes; in the other he called for revisiting fundamental press freedoms established more than 50 years ago.

That's right. A Supreme Court justice is arguing that:

In his opinion, thankfully not joined by any other justice, he called into question what is generally regarded as the most important freedom of speech decision in American history: New York Times vs. Sullivan.

The ruling made it difficult for those holding or running for public office to recover for defamation, on the principle that the fear of such judgments could inhibit a vigorous free press.

Basically he says it should be legal for someone like Trump to ****** SUE the press at will.

The OP would have you believe that Democrats are out to gut the 1st amendment in some weird twisted backhanded way while freedom of the press is being attacked directly by a Supreme Court justice and the ******* President ?!



Oh wait!! This thread isn't ironic. It is exactly what the Repugnicans have been running damage control with for years now. After getting caught doing X, they immediately find an example of the other side doing something even remotely similar and them hammer it to death.

 

[The Big Dog]

The good news? This grandstanding ploy will not pass the Senate and will never become law.

But the threat of it alone reveals the sneering contempt that the house democrats have for free speech and also reveals that the democrat party thinks that its supporters are idiots.

For the People act: deliver us from totalitarian leftists.

 

[The Big Dog]

So ironic that this thread is just days after a Republican, in a much higher position of power, literally attacked the First Amendment directly (as well as the 6th)..

Gaze upon the first of what will surely be many attempts to seduce you with spectacular whataboutism.

Ask yourself why leftists are always so desperate to derail any discussion of the Bill.

The good news? Actual skeptics should be as profoundly disgusted by fallacious arguments designed to seduce the feeble minded as they should be by this bill

 

[Belz...]

Free speech analysis of the monstrous power grab

The democrats will gut the right to free speech and slap you in the face with an insipid name while doing it.

Power grab? What are you babbling about?

Your comment is ripe for whataboutisms.

 

[Belz...]

Gaze upon the first of what will surely be many attempts to seduce you with spectacular whataboutism.

See my previous post. What did you expect? You spent years defending people who attack the foundations of freedoms in your country, and then complain when people point out your hypocrisy?

Cry me a river.

 

[dudalb]

Democratic party.

Do you think you could substantiate some of your threads and posts with, you know, information?

TBD does not do evidence.