Skip to comments.Free Speech Licenses? VANITY
Posted on 01/06/2013 9:52:33 PM PST by ApplegateRanch
If the Left insists upon limiting the Second Amendment, then maybe it is time to reexamine the First Amendment, in light of their arguments for limiting the Second.
Whereas: More people are threatened, bullied, or otherwise victimized by speech or other forms of expression utilizing mass communications;
Whereas: Technical advances have placed the means of mass communications and publishing onto every desktop and mobile device in America;
Whereas: Only manual writing or manually operated printing presses were available in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted;
Whereas: The Founding Fathers had no way of even conceiving of the concept of telephony, broadcasting, satellite communications, instant messaging, email, mass-media, home-computer publishing, or the Internet;
Be it resolved:
All persons engaging in publishing, or other mass communications by any means other than hand written public missives or by operated printing presses; or live, non-broadcast or recorded, stage performances shall be licensed;
All equipment, except hand operated printing presses or writing materials, be declared 'Means of Mass Communication';
No Means of Mass Communication may be produced, purchased, sold or otherwise transferred, owned, possessed, controlled, or used or operated by any person or other entity without issuance and possession of a valid Mass Communications Device Permit, after appropriate application, testing, and payment of applicable fees are made to Federal Authorities, for each such specific device;
All Means of Mass Communication in violation of the above shall be turned in to the newly formed Bureau of Free Speech Enforcement;
Every person and entity producing, purchasing, selling or otherwise transferring, owning, possessing, controlling, or using or operating such Means of Mass Communication shall either obtain a Mass Communications Permit, or turn in any and all Means of Mass Communication to Bureau of Free Speech Enforcement.
The problem with this particular misguided missive is that it incorrectly presumes that the 1st Amendment is not important to conservatives.
The point is to make Libs’ heads explode trying to figure out a response that isn’t self contradictory.
IOW, if not One, then why Two?
Not that it’s not important, but as with the 2nd conservatives would mostly register their MCD’s and pay the fees as they do now for their guns. As we know from the bleatings of liberals and the horrific acts some of them have done, we’d need to treble the number of jails to handle the overflow!
(MCD = Mass Communication Device) (Good one!)
Just place it upon the mass media and politicians. Have them register all commo equipment they purchase as well as have a 15 day waiting period (make it six months instead). Make sure they have to take about 300 hours of training in the responsible use of their mouths before they go shooting them off. If caught in a lie, fabrication, or spouting words that could result in the diminishment of Constitutional protections they get charged accordingly by zealous DAs.
Furthermore, it incorrectly presumes that the 1st Amendment is important to communists. Nothing can be farther from the truth. It was a crime to spread information in USSR and in China because information is the worst threat to dictators. I think I read somewhere that in USSR many typewriters and all copiers had to be registered with the state; running a printing press required a higher clearance than running a rifle range.
Communists would be perfectly happy if the whole Constitution is suppressed. Then the only laws remaining would be their own pocket laws, rules and regulations - and they can tailor those to the need. Of course only licensed journalists would be allowed to speak, and only licensed printing houses could print anything, anywhere. Internet firewalls are already in place abroad - and they are coming to the USA too.
Make sure there are hefty fees imposed for said registration. If they want to go full auto triple it.
That, and your subsequent post, sound like implementing regulations to be written by the Bureau of Free Speech Enforcement.
Look at the 22,000 some odd firearms laws on the books enforced by various government bureaucracies. Maybe the mass media and politicians should have 22,000 speech laws sitting on their shoulders that they need to comply with.
That sounds like a good possible argument to use against them, too.
Even though I am being rather tongue-in-cheek in my replies what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
And that was my entire point. Thanks!
Gooses and gravy, and they are one fine set of sauced up gaggle of goosestepping geese.
It would seem prudent to outlaw high capacity email programs. The danger is that I have relatives who might barely qualify for free speech licenses, but they tend to mass spam stupid jokes and articles debunked years ago to dozens on their contact lists. I have similar problems with FR ping lists. ;-)
Don’t forget to have the list of the home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and other contact info on all journos and politicians posted and mapped on a website.
Shooting someone is a way of expressing your voice .
Just as art is free speech.
True. All copiers (even the old ones), any means of disseminating information, all information about society.
Phone books. Highly classified and filled with fakes.
Yes, the analogy has been brought up before that Television, Radio, and the Internet is the “assault weapon” of the First Amendment.
We need mandatory background checks, and the ability to keep MCDs away from people who are psychologically unstable — for example, people who disagree with CNN. All we’re asking for are commonsense speech control laws. It’s for the children! /s