TED Conversations

Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

In the UK, online rants land some in jail

Great Britain prosecutes people who post obscene, offensive, or menacing messages on Facebook & Twitter

Should the US prosecute for obscene or menacing Facebook posts & tweets?

Is there to much anger & negativity.

Should online speech be protected.

Where should the line be drawn.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 17 2012: At a certain age does the 1st amendment start sounding like a bad idea? Edward was saying that there should be a regulation on political advertising.

    The answer is no.
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2012: I agree. I just read the first amendment (again), and renewed the fact that libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, copyright violations, and revelation of information classified or otherwise are not protected. Further reading of the Sedation Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act of 1917, and the alien sedition Act of 1798 that included four bills 1) Naturalization Act, 2) Alien Act, 3) Alien Enemies Act, and 4)) Sedation Act. These were all ment to guard against the real threat of anarchy.

      The more I read in history the more I realize that there are few things new. The events of 1798 can be directly related to the events of 2012. Also if read with a open and inquiring mind how wise and visionary the founding fathers were.

      Argument against the suggested changes to the Constitution or implementing policy could be the McCain Finstien act that effected political contributions (I call this the cry baby act because McCain could not get the same amount of donations) that brought about super PACS. Our current legislaters can not envision yesterday let alone 200 years from now.

      In regards to Edwards suggestion we cannot regulate those who can be led, will not read and learn, or are incapable because of stupidity.

      My kids history classes and giovernment classes were essentially ... on what date did this occur .... What we need is more cause and effect. If that happens then the lessons of history would include economics, politics, statistics, and the influencing factors of the day. I cannot see why this is not possible unless it would offend the textbook publishers and the test developers. It would really tick off politicians ... good.

      Thanks for the reply. Bob.
      • thumb
        Nov 18 2012: The last paragraph would render the preceding paragraphs superfluous?
      • thumb
        Nov 18 2012: You wrote: “I agree. I just read the first amendment (again), and renewed the fact that libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, copyright violations, and revelation of information classified or otherwise are not protected.”

        You say that the Alien and Sedition act was legal, but it was not. Just because the act was signed into law by a government run by Federalists who opposed a Constitution with a Bill of Rights does not make the act constitutionally legal. The reason that the act was never brought before the Supreme Court is because it wasn’t until later that the Supreme Court GAVE ITSELF the power to overthrow Constitutional Law, replacing it with British Common Law.

        Have you forgotten that the anti-federalists were successful in blocking ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights because they were afraid of things like the Alien & Sedition Act?

        The Alien & Sedition Act was the major reason why Adams lost his second bid for the presidency. (Though Adam’s belief in the divine right of aristocracy also helped). Granted, the Federalists were also convicted of same by Anti-Federalists just before the act expired, but Jefferson, when he became president, pardoned everyone arrested under the act because the act was unconstitutional.

        You look at the 1st Amendment out of its historical context. “No law” means “NO law”. There is no “except” in the 1st amendment.

        Part of me would like everyone at FOX news arrested and put in jail for their lies, slander, sedition, and libel. How would you feel if that happened?

        PS: Copyright infringement is covered by Article I, Section 8, not the first amendment. Your desire to prohibit publishing information (classified or otherwise) on a federal level is not constitutional without throwing out the constitution. If you want a change, you should support a constitutional amendment.

        Your understanding of early American History is very limited and covered by biases that blind you.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.