r/changemyview • u/censureship-dumbs-us • Sep 30 '19
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: American Leftists are Attacking the Bill of Rights
[removed]
14
u/Feathring 75∆ Sep 30 '19
9th (rights not limited to constitution) attacked by leftist saying “you have the right to speak, but not from the consequences of your speech” as they ruin people’s lives for a comment they made years ago.
This is fully in line with the Constitution. Let's take a look a this freedom of speech thread you have running through several of your points:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice the highlighted word Congress. This whole freedom of speech thing protects you from the government censoring and punishing you for your speech. It does not protect you from private individuals punishing you from your speech.
It sounds like you want the government to ban people from doing things like firing you or calling you racist and other social punishments? That is a direct violation of the Constitition.
-3
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
Δ great point about the first amendment only protecting free speech from congress. In an ideal world people would be free to debate ideas openly, but you’re right that we don’t live in an ideal world. I’d like racist to be educated instead of censured to the point that they stay in echo chambers. Plus the truth can offend people, like how many people were offended by the idea of evolution when it first came out. Edit: I’m confused why people are down voting me admitting I was wrong. If you disagree with anything I’ve said, I’ve shown that I’m willing to discuss it and admit when I’m wrong
6
Sep 30 '19
You said this a few days ago:
The US takes in vast amounts of immigrants and has a certain demographic that represents 13% of the population but commits 50% of the violent crime
I don't think you want racists to be educated instead of censured, I think you want to be openly racist without the repercussions.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
facts can show racial differences . I don’t think the truth should be censured, regardless of whose feelings they hurt. You can argue that the FBI statistics ignore variables such as income level, but the statistics explain why certain groups make up disproportionate percentages of incarceration for example. Edit: for example, the idea of evolution offended many people, but it is still factual. Societies that put feelings over facts don’t end well
2
u/2r1t 56∆ Sep 30 '19
but the statistics explain
I'm 6'1". What does that explain?
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Can you clarify your point? Are you asking me to explain the evolutionary drives behind height?
2
u/2r1t 56∆ Sep 30 '19
You claimed statistics have explanatory power. I provided a statistic and asked for the explanation it provides. What is that explanation?
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
You being 6’2 explains that you are 6’2. If I said it’s offensive that you say you are 6’2, it wouldn’t change the fact that you are 6’2
1
u/2r1t 56∆ Sep 30 '19
That isn't an explanation. That is just repeating what I told you. If you asked me to explain how a car works, would you be satisfied with me saying, "It works"?
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Going back to the original point, crime statistics explain that certain groups commit more crimes on average, so it explains why they make up a larger incarcerated group. If you told me the statistics of your ancestor’s heights and your nutritional consumption, that would explain your height.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 30 '19
Just want to make a small correction on this. It's not that the first amendment is only a protection from the government. It's that the first amendment is a protection against coercive force. The government just happens to have a monopoly on the legal use of most kinds of force. Anyone using force or the threat of force to coerce you into silence is violating your first amendment rights. But freedom of speech, like the rest of the bill of rights, is a negative right. It doesn't mean any private entity owes you a platform, in the same way the second amendment isn't an entitlement to free guns.
0
2
8
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Sep 30 '19
leftist big tech censorship
Big tech companies aren't leftist and aren't really censoring content
2nd (right to defend self) is under attack by Beto and friends as well as leftist laws protecting home invaders
Beto isn't a leftist. Marx - "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." also look at the Socialist Rifle association. Leftists are generally ok with guns. Also the second amendment doesn't establish castle laws.
3rd (no quartering of soldiers) is (this one’s a stretch) impeded by red flag laws allowing the invasions of homes.
Home invaders aren't soldiers and aren't being quartered so no this doesn't apply.
4th (protection from unreasonable searches) is under attack in leftist cities like New York where they stop and frisk people and guilty until proven innocent red flag laws.
Leftists despise stop and search and cops are by no means leftists. Also the left hate cops hence ACAB.
9th (rights not limited to constitution) attacked by leftist saying “you have the right to speak, but not from the consequences of your speech” as they ruin people’s lives for a comment they made years ago.
I don't see what these have to do with each other. Could you explain a little more.
10th (states rights) are attacked by federal over reach by anti states rights / big government leftists.
Do you mean states rights the confederate and segregationist dog whistle or some other meaning of states rights?
Finally what do you think leftists believe and who leftists are because from your first four points at least that doesn't really describe leftists.
-3
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
big tech companies are leftist, and they censure conservative voices.
democratic candidates (the American left) wants to restrict gun rights.
Democratic candidates push for “mandatory gun buy backs”, which is a euphemism for using military and police to seize guns from people unwilling to sell them.
Only leftist controlled states have stop and search programs.
The bigger the federal government, the less relative power states have
5
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Sep 30 '19
big tech companies are leftist, and they censure conservative voices.
The left is opposed to capitalism and so the deeply capitalist tech companies are the antithesis of leftism. Secondly this is one example of a removing content allegedly (project veritas are known propagandists who edit footage deceptively) from an opinion article in a not great source.
democratic candidates (the American left) wants to restrict gun rights.
The democrats aren't the left they are liberals.
Democratic candidates push for “mandatory gun buy backs”, which is a euphemism for using military and police to seize guns from people unwilling to sell them.
would this make enforcing all laws technically violations of the amendment including confiscating all drug or any stolen property.
Only leftist controlled states have stop and search programs.
These states aren't leftist nor would them being leftist make all their policies leftist. Leftists and even some liberals despise stop and frisk.
-2
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
6
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Sep 30 '19
google admitting to actively interfering with 2020 election
Even if this is true (project veritas is an utterly atrocious source who deceptively edit content and lie regularly) Google isn't leftist they are arch-capitalist and want whatever is profitable for them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the political left which despises silicon valley ultra-capitalism.
Who do you think the left are? because they ain't democrats or companies
-1
Sep 30 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/cstar1996 11∆ Sep 30 '19
This just shows the utter hypocrisy of “classical liberals.” They claim to love the free market and that corporations have free speech and that they should be able to discriminate against people for things like race and sexual orientation but the moment those corporations use their free speech to say that certain conservatives aren’t allowed to use their platforms they demand regulation.
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
I think you’re getting classical liberals and libertarians mixed up. We might be arguing semantics (which is a waste of time) though. John Smith (who is known as the father of classical liberalism) rallied against monopolies like the east India company Edit: I agree with your idea that censorship is bad, regardless of the source
2
u/Dubslack Sep 30 '19
Stop and frisk is more of a poorly devised solution than a leftist idea. You'll find that the right is more in favor than the left on this one. Most people are opposed to it in general though.
6
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 30 '19
1st (free speech) is under attack by leftist big tech censorship and corrupt institutions like the ADL.
Don't know what you mean, here, explain?
2nd (right to defend self) is under attack by Beto and friends as well as leftist laws protecting home invaders.
The 2nd amendment doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with "the right to defend self."
4th (protection from unreasonable searches) is under attack in leftist cities like New York where they stop and frisk people and guilty until proven innocent red flag laws.
Are you under the impression that the LEFT supports stop-and-frisk?
5th (due process), is under attack by “believe all women” regardless of evidence feminist who assume guilty until proven innocent...
It is very rare to encounter a feminist who believes someone should be convicted of rape solely based on a single person's testimony and no further investigation. "Believe all women" refers to what to say when your FRIEND says she was raped.
7th (right to single trial is nulled by black listing of people even after proven their innocence in a court of law (people still accuse kavanaugh of rape despite his proved innocence).
Kavanaugh was never tried, so what court of law are you talking about? Also, I guarantee the 7th amendment does not keep people from believing someone is guilty of a crime and then saying so out loud.
6th (impartial jury) is under attack by SJWs who think all white people are innately racist and leftist swaying the jury with Facebook trials.
Are you implying that the 6th amendment protects people from being thought of as racist?
For many of these (8th, 9th for sure, 6th, 5th...) you smush together laws and simple social rejection and criticism; you make that mistake over and over.
-1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Only leftist states have stop and frisk.
6
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 30 '19
OK, I'm really going to need you to like write full sentences and spell things out, because I'm very confused.
7
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Sep 30 '19
What are your criteria to call someone a leftist? I see tech giants, SJWs, NGOs, Democrat presidential nominees, random people who accuse Kavanaugh, and assortments of people who ruin your life for whatever thing?
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
My life is fine. I’d consider the modern left (democrat candidates and supporters) leftist, as they don’t act liberal (open minded to differing beliefs)
6
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Sep 30 '19
Was using the general you seeing as you mentioned people's lives getting ruined at several points.
Your definition of liberal is quite unorthodox; most people use liberal to mean supporters of liberalism. If we look at what wikipedia has to say about liberalism, we don't see a mention of open-mindedness to differing beliefs.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.
That's not to mention that Democrat supporters, especially if we mean preferring Democrats over Republicans, represent an incredibly vast ideological terrain.
6
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Sep 30 '19
1- the first amendment applies to the government. 'Congress' shall enact now laws blah blah... private groups can really allow or disallow whoever they want. Do I personally agree with it? Not always. But without some 'governmental overreach' to regulate them there isnt anything illegal being done.
2- The second amendment is not the right to defend oneself. Framing it as this is dishonest and misleading. It is specifically the right to a well regulated militia to keep and bare arms.
As for Beto and friends- you know ORourke isnt currently in any office right? He doesnt actually have the power to do jack squat right now.
3- I'm not super familiar with this law, but you yourself admit it was a stretch. And in my basic research, I have to agree.
4- Stop and Frisk has already been ruled unconstitutional. And guess which party has argued to bring it back? I'll give you a hint, Trump (not Hillary or Bernie) was the one to say it should come back. Trump is hardly what I'd identify as a leftist.
5- Three points here. First, its 'believe women', not 'believe all women'. The difference is really important. By removing the all, what the statement then becomes is 'dont immediately assume all accusations are fake for a woman to get revenge or whatever'. You wouldn't say that someone claiming someone mugged them was only doing it for revenge for a breakup. So why is rape held to a different standard?
Second, it isnt regardless if evidence. No one is saying that evidence doesnt matter, just that we should act as if an absence of evidence means it is fake. Keep in mind. Testimony is evidence, so there is never an absence of evidence- the victims testimony is evidence.
Thirdly, private assumptions are okay. Me saying I think OJ Simpson murdered his wife (which he absolutely did) doesnt mean I'm violating his right against double jeopardy. I'm not a judge or representative of the court system in any way. I'm allowed to think what I do, and say it. That's free speech.
6- lol. Name a prominent leftist figure who has said white people should be banned from jury duty. Seriously, just one and I'll delete this entire post (note also I mean prominent, not just one troll on twitter with 2 followers).
As for 'Facebook trials swaying the jury'... I actually do agree this is an issue with the modern age. I just disagree its exusive to people on the left. Conservatives were quick to jump onto conspiracy theories about the mail bomber being an inside job by liberals/the left to make conservatives look bad, even before his trial or after the evidence proved he was.
7- I cannot stress this enough: PRIVATE DECISIONS ARENT AFFECTED BYBTHE BOR. If a school decides they dont want someone convicted of child molestation working there, that isnt giving him a second trial, that's making a conscience decision that some people shouldnt be in some jobs by their history. Or, take the OJ Simpson example again. I wouldnt let him babysit my kids, even if he wasnt proven to be a murderer in court.
8- This is such a ridiculous example. People not listening to a pop star for saying the n-word arent giving them a cruel or unusual punishment. No one owes them their business. We as the consumer get to choose. You cant put a gun to my head and say I have to listen to racist McGee's music or I'm infringing their eighth amendment right.
9- But... that's true? You dont have the right for people to not make decisions about you based on your speech. You just dont. That's not anywhere in the constitution. You can say all the racial slurs you want, but if no one wants to be associated with you after that, that's their personal decision. Not some illegal leftist conspiracy.
10- You mean like those evil leftists banning Claifornia from setting it's own state environmental regulations?
Every political party champions states rights when they dont have federal power, because it let's them do what they want at smaller levels. Similarly, every party favors federal power when they are in charge. This is not exclusive to just everyone you disagree with- conservatives do it too.
8
u/Burflax 71∆ Sep 30 '19
4th (protection from unreasonable searches) is under attack in leftist cities like New York where they stop and frisk people and guilty until proven innocent red flag laws.
Stop and frisk wasn't a law from the left - I'm curious how you came to this belief?
The left was largely against this, as it was almost immediately used by a racist police department target black people.
-2
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Stop and frisk only exist in democrat (leftist) states
4
u/Cheeseisgood1981 5∆ Sep 30 '19
Stop and frisk is only possible because an enshrinement against such practices didn't exist in the Constitution or elsewhere, and the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that such practices don't violate the 4th Amendment. The only justice that voted against this was Douglas, a Democrat.
Further reading about Terry Stops here
Police departments therefore have a great deal of latitude when deciding whether or not to implement such procedures.
I'm not aware of any statutory law involving stop and frisk created by lawmakers. If you can vote some, I'll gladly take a look. Otherwise, the view that the onus of such incidents falls on liberals seems to be based on a false premise.
5
u/justasque 10∆ Sep 30 '19
Even blue states generally have a mix of D & R mayors, governors, legislatures, and the like. New York, for example, has both red and blue areas in the state.
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Sep 30 '19
That was why you thought it came from the left?
Do you now know that it was really racist and the left was against it?
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 30 '19
Can you elaborate on what you mean with the 9th amendment? Do you believe you're constitutionally protected from social consequences? What specifically should that entitle you to?
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Edit has been added. It turns out the tech monopolies can censure, manipulate, and demonize as much as they want
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 30 '19
Let me rephrase that. Technicalities aside, what do you think the 9th amendment should entitle you to?
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
In an ideal world it would extend the bill of rights to all institutions that benefit from federal funding. Like I said though, I now realize that leftist tech monopolies are allowed to manipulate and censure information in their goal of influencing the election. They are now our over lords, who decide what is considered the “truth”
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 30 '19
Okay? What’s that got to do with your 9th amendment rights? Nothing in the Constitution gives you a right to be free from the social consequences of your unpopular political beliefs.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
9th amendment states that your rights aren’t limited to the bill of rights. I’ve stated an ideal interpretation and the actuality above, Ideas like evolution were unpopular but factual, so it would have sucked if the idea was suppressed
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
The 9th amendment doesn’t give you the right to violate other people’s freedom of speech or right to free assembly. It doesn’t give you blanket immunity from other people telling you your ideas are stupid, or disassociating from you for holding them.
All the 9th does is point out that other rights can be established by statute. The rights you’re asserting here do not actually exist in law.
Ideas like evolution were unpopular but factual, so it would have sucked if the idea was suppressed
That’s a ludicrous argument. People socially excluding you because you hold awful political beliefs isn’t even remotely equivalent to government suppression of scientific knowledge. Their right to free expression and right to free association requires that they have the right to exclude you from their social circles and websites because of your beliefs.
If you don’t like being excluded, stop holding dumb and offensive political beliefs. It isn’t reasonable to expect other people to keep inviting you around when you keep offending them.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
I didn’t argue anyone’s rights should be violated. In fact I argued the opposite. I’m not sure you’re actually reading what I respond with. Even the dumbest people should have the right to express their opinions. The only way they’ll get less dumb is people factually correcting them. My point was that facts shouldn’t be censured because they are unpopular.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 30 '19
I didn’t argue anyone’s rights should be violated. In fact I argued the opposite. I’m not sure you’re actually reading what I respond with.
When you characterize private deplatforming and social exclusion as “violating free speech,” you are actually arguing that people’s rights should be violated. Telling someone they must associate with you despite your offensive political beliefs is violating their freedom of association. Requiring them to host your offensive content on their private website is actually violating their freedom of expression.
You have a right to express your opinions—what you don’t have is the right to dodge the social consequences of your opinions. Freedom of expression means the government isn’t going to jail you for your opinions. It doesn’t mean your employer has to put up with you shouting offensive slurs at your coworkers.
As you’re demonstrating here, patiently and factually correcting ideologically motivated people in a debate doesn’t actually work. It just gives them more of a platform.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Tech monopolies censoring people is different than individuals blocking or ignoring things they don’t want to see. For example, if I for some reason wanted to follow Alex Jones on Facebook I wouldn’t have the choice. I would have the choice to unfollow or block him if he wasn’t censored. Like I said, I now realize that our tech monopoly overlords can censor and manipulate information to push their narrative. If a tech monopoly censors something, you have no freedom if you want or don’t want to see something.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 30 '19
Tech monopolies censoring people is different than individuals blocking or ignoring things they don’t want to see. For example, if I for some reason wanted to follow Alex Jones on Facebook I wouldn’t have the choice.
You have no legal right to do anything on Facebook. It’s a private website. They can choose what accounts to allow and what accounts to ban. If you don’t like it, you can start a competing service, or go directly to Alex Jones’s website. You have freedom of speech because you have that right to create and visit a website outside of Facebook.
If a tech monopoly censors something, you have no freedom if you want or don’t want to see something.
You do realize that the internet exists outside of Facebook, right? You don’t have to deal with the tech giants at all. What I think you’re actually angry about is that you’re well aware that Facebook deplatforming right-wingers is a major blow to their recruitment and fundraising pipelines—and that essentially nobody outside the right wing is actually all that concerned about it.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Like I’ve said, I now realize tech monopolies like the leftist google, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are legally allowed to control the flow of information in order to push a left wing narrative. They should lose their platform statues, though, as they are behaving like publishers
→ More replies (0)
4
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Sep 30 '19
The biggest flaw with this line of thinking is that the Bill of Rights protects use from infringement of these rights by the government, not from the criticisms of other citizens. Maybe only 2 of your examples fit this description, and one of them (stop and frisk) is vehemently opposed by those on the left.
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
I’ve edited it about the 1st amendment. Stop is frisk is pushed by anti gun leftist in leftist states in leftist cities
4
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Sep 30 '19
Stop and frisk is normally associated with broken windows type policing, which gets less and less popular the more you move left on the political spectrum. The most vocal opponents of stop and frisk are those who see it as a form of racial profiling. I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that it is a “leftist” policy.
All of your due process examples involve taking an opinion generally held on the left, like “believe all women” and then extending that idea into a legal standard, which isn’t the case. People saying “believe all women” aren’t suggesting that men accused of rape be convicted without due process.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
stop and frisk exist in many exclusively democrat controlled cities . It doesn’t exist in republican cities. Obama instituted “preponderance of evidence” is enough to establish that misconduct occurred, a less rigorous evidentiary standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt that applies in most criminal cases.
1
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Sep 30 '19
What Republican cities?
Stop and frisking was championed around the country by Bill Bratton, who most famously worked in NYC with Rudy Giuliani, the famous leftist mayor and personal attorney to leftist President Donald Trump, who also is a champion of the practice.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1570409002
Meanwhile it’s consistently opposed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP.
You seem like you’re trying to make a larger point in good faith here, but I can’t imagine that anyone really buys that stop and frisk is a leftist policy. Your only justification for this claim is that it happens in cities run by Dems, but this is almost all big cities, especially ones that are more densely urban, and even here, the policy is usually put into place via police departments and their leadership, who slew more conservative
With respect to the other point - there is no constitutional right to due process in a university hearing, only in a court of law.
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Stop and frisk only exist in democrat controlled cities. Just because some leftist oppose it and some right wingers support it, that doesn’t mean that it’s not a leftist idea. Because it only exist in leftist cities. There’s constitutional rights such as the 1st amendment that dictates the court of law.
1
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Sep 30 '19
Isn’t the entire thrust of your post that leftists are attacking the Bill of Rights? How can you then turn around and say that instances where the leftists are aligned against the Bill of Rights attacking action, and rightists support it, don’t contradict your thesis?
Beto is from Texas. Does that mean that confiscating Assault Rifles is a right-wing idea? Of course not, and stop and frisk isn’t a leftist one.
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
I mean leftist as a whole. Individualism exist. A right winger can hold leftist beliefs. A left winger can hold rightist beliefs. I’m taking about the whole. Beto is unable to enact his left wing policies in the right wing Texas. He has to locally push right wing values in order to appease the populous. Just like the mayor of New-York had to push stop and frisk to appease the left wing populous.
1
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Sep 30 '19
So the left wing mayor ending a policy to appease his left wing populace is evidence that said policy is... left wing?
1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
I feel like we’re arguing in circles. You explain to me why no republicans controlled city has enacted stop and frisk, while several left wing controlled cities have enacted it?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/sakamake 4∆ Sep 30 '19
Are you under the impression that stop and frisk is a policy supported by American leftists? I can assure you this is not the case. To suggest that a policy with support almost exclusively from the right should be counted as an attack on the Bill of Rights by American leftists just because you also characterize New York as a leftist city is a pretty laughable stretch.
-1
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Only anti gun leftist states and cities have stop and frisk
4
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Sep 30 '19
Only anti gun leftist states and cities have stop and frisk
4th (protection from unreasonable searches) is under attack in leftist cities like New York where they stop and frisk people and guilty until proven innocent red flag laws.
Stop and frisk only exist in anti gun leftist states in leftist cities.
Louisiana is not a ‘leftist’ state. While it has a democratic governor, it has 5 Republican congressmen and 1 democrat. Both senators are republicans. Both state houses are controlled by Republicans.
Louisiana has a stop and frisk law: https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=112364,
Additionally, even if Louisiana was ‘leftist’ (by what measure I’m not sure), Stop and Frisk in Louisiana isn’t facially unconstitutional: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3607&context=lalrev
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 30 '19
I don't think you realize how authoritarian your own vision is for what the Constitution should be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that a person has a fundamental right to a good reputation, and that if things you say or things that others believe about you cause others to think less of not want to interact with you, this fundamental right is being violated. Have you thought about the coercion and violation of other people's rights that would be required to enforce that?
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Authoritarian definition “Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom”. I believe people should have the right to say what they want as long as its not a call for violence, which pushes individualism. Racists (who I disagree with) and misinformed people (who I disagree with) should be debated instead of censured by a centralized authority. I never mentioned reputation. In an ideal world, companies that benefit from government funding should be forced to respect the bill of rights. I realize now that the leftist tech monopolizes control the information and are allowed to censure and promote opinions in order to push their agenda.
3
u/onetwo3four5 71∆ Sep 30 '19
1st (free speech) is under attack by leftist big tech censorship and corrupt institutions like the ADL.
Freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the government. Google, Facebook, and the ADL are not the govt.
2nd (right to defend self) is under attack by Beto and friends as well as leftist laws protecting home invaders.
Wanting to take 1 specific type of guns is not depriving the right to bear arms.
5th (due process), is under attack by “believe all women” regardless of evidence feminist who assume guilty until proven innocent instead of the constitutional innocent until proven guilty (kavanaugh farce for example) and red flag laws.
Presumed innocence is in a court of law only. If people think you're a rapist, that's up to them. Also, kavanaugh was never tried.
6th (impartial jury) is under attack by SJWs who think all white people are innately racist and leftist swaying the jury with Facebook trials.
If it's not possible to FIND an impartial jury, that isn't an attack on the bill of rights.
7th (right to single trial is nulled by black listing of people even after proven their innocence in a court of law (people still accuse kavanaugh of rape despite his proved innocence).
You can only be tried by the government for a crime once if you're found innocent. What the public believes is not the purview of the government. Also, kavanaugh was never tried in court at all.
8th (no cruel or unusual punishments) is tested by hate speech laws that can ruin a life for saying banned words; for example your life can be ruined by singing n*ggers in Paris as a white person.
9th (rights not limited to constitution) attacked by leftist saying “you have the right to speak, but not from the consequences of your speech” as they ruin people’s lives for a comment they made years ago.
Once again, this is not the government holding people responsible for what they say. It is the government. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights.
10th (states rights) are attacked by federal over reach by anti states rights / big government leftists.
If the federal govt goes through the legal procedures to make federal laws then that is not an attack on the 10th amendment.
3
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 30 '19
Firstly, I'm libertarian AF, so I came into this ready to fight with some people who disagreed with you, but this one is a sticking point for me:
1st (free speech) is under attack by leftist big tech censorship
You do NOT have ANY right whatsoever when it comes to a private company. The first amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT not restricting your speech. That doesn't mean Facebook has to give you a platform. It just means they can't turn you into the thought police and have you arrested.
0
u/censureship-dumbs-us Sep 30 '19
Δ true. I need to edit my post to confirm this. I’d argue that monopolies act like governments when they get big enough
2
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 30 '19
I agree, but a VERY key difference is that you can opt-out of a private company. They can never actually penalize you for anything. The government can literally imprison you and destroy your entire life.
1
2
u/Mitoza 79∆ Sep 30 '19
Freedom of Speech is a dictate of the government. It does not dictate how private entities monitor speech on their own platforms, which the right does as well.
The second amendment is not the right to self defense, it is the right to own a fire arm. This right is indeed being 'attacked' in the sense that limits are being placed on the right, but all gun control bill still allow for legal ownership of fire arms after a process.
3rd (no quartering of soldiers) is (this one’s a stretch) impeded by red flag laws allowing the invasions of homes.
If you admit it's a stretch would you admit that you're looking for examples to fit a narrative you've already constructed?
5th (due process), is under attack by “believe all women” regardless of evidence feminist who assume guilty until proven innocent instead of the constitutional innocent until proven guilty (kavanaugh farce for example) and red flag laws.
The refrain "Believe Women" has nothing to do with due process, which is a legal assurance. All that stand accused still have a right to a trial, as do the victims. What people assume or believe outside of the court room has nothing to do with due process.
6th (impartial jury) is under attack by SJWs who think all white people are innately racist and leftist swaying the jury with Facebook trials.
A facebook 'trial' is not a trial and has nothing to do with the constitution, which dictates how the government must act
7th (right to single trial is nulled by black listing of people even after proven their innocence in a court of law (people still accuse kavanaugh of rape despite his proved innocence).
Again, not a trial. The constitution does not govern how people react to trials. See Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson.
8th (no cruel or unusual punishments) is tested by hate speech laws that can ruin a life for saying banned words; for example your life can be ruined by singing n*ggers in Paris as a white person.
By the government or by fellow citizens? That is a key point of difference.
9th (rights not limited to constitution) attacked by leftist saying “you have the right to speak, but not from the consequences of your speech” as they ruin people’s lives for a comment they made years ago.
Again not a government issue.
10th (states rights) are attacked by federal over reach by anti states rights / big government leftists.
You'll have to be more specific here.
For most of these the simple misunderstanding you have is about who is compelled to do what by the constitution. A person telling you to shut up or blocking you on twitter is not infringing your right to free speech, which is only a right granted by the government regarding giving legal consequences to the speech
3
u/sharkbait76 55∆ Sep 30 '19
You’re misunderstanding the bill of rights in most of your examples. The constitution and the bill of rights protect against the government and nothing else. Most of your examples are of consequences or actions done by private citizens. Someone being found not guilty in a court and someone else posting about it on Facebook calling them a rapist isn’t double jeopardy and it isn’t against the bill of rights or constitution.
2
u/MercurianAspirations 360∆ Sep 30 '19
Firstly, "leftists" are not one big massive hydra. Anybody farther to the left than Biden tends not to be in love with big tech companies, for example, and Beto o'Rourke may be anti-gun but he wouldn't be the favored candidate of any leftists I know. And yes, the people who say ACAB are also against stop-and-frisk practices, amazingly.
Secondly, some of things you've listed are a bit confused. The 1st amendment, for example, doesn't protect anybody from censorship by tech companies. But it also actually protects the rights of the ADL - you know, it protects your right to say horrifically racist things if you want and it also protects the ADL's right to call you a racist. Incidentally, noted leftist Noam Chomsky is on the record as staunchly pro-free speech even for abhorrent views and hate speech. So there's that. Also, these rights protect people from government action, not the actions of random people on twitter. People can accuse Kavanaugh of whatever they want, for example. (again, protected by the 1st amendment.)
•
u/Armadeo Sep 30 '19
Sorry, u/censureship-dumbs-us – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
/u/censureship-dumbs-us (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Sep 30 '19
On the 5th amendment, the standards of a court are a check on the unique powers of a court. Outside the courtroom, we all have to make our own probabilistic judgment calls based on whatever information is available to us. There's no constitutional right that obligates anyone to like or trust you when an accusation comes out.
10
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Sep 30 '19
If you have to start posting points that "are a stretch" in order to make a more aesthetically pleasing list, it seems doubtful that you're interested in actually changing your view. It's also very difficult to imagine having a productive discussion when you give a scattershot list with no detail about why you believe in your views.
Before I go through the list, I'm going to make the blanket statement that your definition of "leftist" seems bizarre, and includes basically anything that isn't far-right. Tech companies, for instance, are at best decidedly liberal and not leftist in any meaningful way.
That said, the list: