Yale Students sign "Petition" to repeal the FIRST Amendment...

[mjr]

You know...this one...

Amendment I

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.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/watch/...ent/vp-BBnD9qY

[dendawg]

Wouldn't attempting to repeal the 1st Ammendment be itself unconstitutional?

[MadMike]

Almost sounds like some sort of infinite loop.

[mjr]

Wouldn't attempting to repeal the 1st Ammendment be itself unconstitutional?

No, Amendments can be repealed. There is a process that must be followed, however.

[Gravekeeper]

....petition to repeal the amendment that grants freedom of petition....

[mjr]

....petition to repeal the amendment that grants freedom of petition....

Ironic, ain't it?

[Kheldarson]

Ironic, ain't it?

Not really. One, this is nothing new. Petitions like this get created and passed all the time. And yeah, you get some signatures. I was in middle school when some guys came around asking the girls to sign to end women's suffrage. I was the only one who recognized the word and what it meant. So you have to ask: how did they have the petition worded? How many did he ask vs how many signed? How many did he have to go into his various speils for and how did he phrase each one?

I'm no more outraged by this than I am by Leno on the street...or whichever comedian it was who set out to find stupid answers to simple questions.

[Canarr]

Ah, okay; for one moment, I was worried that a group of Yale students actually came up with that idea. But it's just a satirist who got 50 gullible/stupid people to sign that thing. That's less shocking.

[TheHuckster]

Ah, okay; for one moment, I was worried that a group of Yale students actually came up with that idea. But it's just a satirist who got 50 gullible/stupid people to sign that thing. That's less shocking.

Yes, but it is still scary that 40% of 18-34 year olds support laws that limit free speech in favor of censorship.

[Gravekeeper]

But it's just a satirist who got 50 gullible/stupid people to sign that thing. That's less shocking.

Its the classic Talking To Americans bit, yeah. So its more embarrassing than shocking.

Yes, but it is still scary that 40% of 18-34 year olds support laws that limit free speech in favor of censorship.

You're kind of misrepresenting that report. Its a debate centered around offensive / hate speech vs minorities specifically. Most western countries do have limits of free speech when it comes to that sort of thing. So if you're going to pitch that as a "scary" thing you're kinda slagging on us non-Americans here.

Besides, its hard to say much from that report as its the first of its kind and there are a ton of nuances in it when its broken down by gender, race, etc. Women for example are also more likely to favour restrictions by a margin not that far behind Millennials vs Gen X.

So are women scary then? Its a close margin. 13 vs 10. There's also a significant racial divide of 15. So are brown people scary?

Saying 40% of Millennials support censorship only sounds impressive when you ignore the context ( racist/hate speech ) and the other numbers ( The baseline is 28% of Americans in general. So 40% sounds a lot less impressive in relation ).

[Rageaholic]

Ah, okay; for one moment, I was worried that a group of Yale students actually came up with that idea. But it's just a satirist who got 50 gullible/stupid people to sign that thing. That's less shocking.

Poe's law

I've heard others argue that free speech should be restricted because minority voices are silenced. Even if we assume that minority voices are being silenced, restricting free speech is not the solution.

[mjr]

I'm no more outraged by this than I am by Leno on the street...or whichever comedian it was who set out to find stupid answers to simple questions.

I don't really look at it as "outrage", moreso as "concern".

Isn't Yale supposed to be one of those Ivy League "Brainiac" schools? And haven't quite a few politicians gone through there?

Think about it: If this is an "Ivy League" school, "best and brightest" sort of thing, you'd think they'd have a little better understanding of the rights and freedoms afforded to Americans via the Constitution.

It's a concern that a few don't. In fact, I would posit that if you were to make a "nationwide" poll regarding repealing the first amendment, the results may shock you.

[Kheldarson]

Isn't Yale supposed to be one of those Ivy League "Brainiac" schools? And haven't quite a few politicians gone through there?

Think about it: If this is an "Ivy League" school, "best and brightest" sort of thing, you'd think they'd have a little better understanding of the rights and freedoms afforded to Americans via the Constitution.

And I'd point you to how piss poor the support for social studies is at the lower levels. And that our current testing regimen forces more rote memorization over actual understanding.

I'd also point out that the only news groups to really push this outrage piece (because that's what it is) are the conservative news groups. That speaks a lot to bias factor.

I'm not concerned by this. These kids will learn more and either understand better or we'll find that society has truly accepted a new definition of free speech anyway. Be interesting to see how it goes.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't really look at it as "outrage", moreso as "concern".

Isn't Yale supposed to be one of those Ivy League "Brainiac" schools? And haven't quite a few politicians gone through there?

Yes, well...

This isn't a recent thing by any means:

Professors at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, New York University and Stanford University were consistently fooled by absurdities such as the "Saskatchewan seal hunt".

[TheHuckster]

You're kind of misrepresenting that report. Its a debate centered around offensive / hate speech vs minorities specifically. Most western countries do have limits of free speech when it comes to that sort of thing. So if you're going to pitch that as a "scary" thing you're kinda slagging on us non-Americans here.

Let's look back to the Maryam Namazie issue. She certainly says things that some would call hateful and certainly offensive to minorities. Should the expression of her ideas be criminalized? If so, then what benefit does that have? She's still going to hold those points of view, whether or not she expresses them. Not to mention, unless you want to get to a thought police state, there is no way to even enforce such laws. If the thought is silencing her will prevent spreading of hateful ideas to other people, then in order for that to be happen, you're going to have to find the anonymous identity on the Internet she will inevitably adopt to evade the law.

And, yes, I am slagging on non-Americans. I do find any government who dictates what anyone can say, even if it's against horribly offensive things, to set a scary precedent. If that offends you, feel free to find a prosecutor to extradite me for it. It sounds like a lot of your argument I'm quoting is "All the other western countries do it" which is flawed.

In the US, we already have laws against certain speech, such as speech that is genuinely threatening to a group, or speech that directly conspires to incite violence. For me, that is sufficient. It wasn't too long ago that they were proposing laws against burning the flag under very similar reasons: That it's offensive and hateful speech. The SCOTUS ruled against that, and I'm very certain they would rule against laws that limit other offensive expressions against minorities.

So are women scary then? Its a close margin. 13 vs 10. There's also a significant racial divide of 15. So are brown people scary?

WTF, man?

I guess using this reasoning you must think brown people are idiots because there's an 11% divide on the anti-vaxxer debate.

Nice try on stretching that far to pin me as a sexist and a racist, though.