Thread: Chilling comment by John Kerry

Originally Posted by njtom

He followed that quote with these words: "What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes to be able to implement change." I don't see any problem with his stance; it's exactly how democracies are supposed to work.

We have a republic, not mob rule.

You can't legislate the First Amendment away. Kerry is a clown.

Originally Posted by John

We have a republic, not mob rule.

You can't legislate the First Amendment away. Kerry is a clown.

But is it possible to expand the definition of "unprotected speech"?

Originally Posted by Colonel

So the democrats should win and then they are going to do something about the first amendment and then they are going to do what when the first amendment is no longer a problem?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that those who believe in the dangers of climate change will, if elected, enact policies to limit those dangers. And they'll be elected only if they are able to convince a sufficient number of voters of the dangers that he believes exist.

Nowhere in that video does he say, or even suggest, that free speech should be constrained in any way.

Originally Posted by njtom

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that those who believe in the dangers of climate change will, if elected, enact policies to limit those dangers. And they'll be elected only if they are able to convince a sufficient number of voters of the dangers that he believes exist.

Nowhere in that video does he say, or even suggest, that free speech should be constrained in any way.

You still haven't addressed what he said about the first amendment with one word. He also said this :

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc."

Originally Posted by Colonel

But is it possible to expand the definition of "unprotected speech"?

Not likely, That's why we have 3 branches of government, not a "democracy" or mob rule. Democrats can be such twits when they really think we have a straight up democracy.

Originally Posted by John

Not likely, That's why we have 3 branches of government, not a "democracy" or mob rule. Democrats can be such twits when they really think we have a straight up democracy.

The mob rule of those with 50.1% of the vote? That's what they ended up with when they tried out democracy in ancient Greece. Efforts to secure the rights of the minorities were then made part of what was seen as a functioning democracy.

Originally Posted by Colonel

You still haven't addressed what he said about the first amendment with one word. He also said this :

"You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc."

But he answered his own question: Not by restricting others' free speech, but by using your own speech to argue for your point of view.

Originally Posted by njtom

But he answered his own question: Not by restricting others' free speech, but by using your own speech to argue for your point of view.

I suppose that it's possible to interpret what he said as wanting people to vote for Harris so that a Democrat government can implement enough change to be able to effectively combat climate change, even though social media is full of alleged lies about the topic and the first amendment blocks the government's ability to deal with those lies by eradicating them by force.

The problem is in how he describes the first amendment. He could have said "but the first amendment protects citizens' right to free speech even when that is against government policies". That would have made it a matter of placing himself on the same side as the first amendment. Instead he describes it as if it were some kind of "unstoppable evil", an inherent weakness in democracies.

Well, the first amendment protects all speech; it makes no distinction between sincere disagreement and intentionally planted disinformation.

If you believe a vital policy initiative is being deliberately thwarted by liars, then you're going to feel frustrated. But if you believe in the supremacy of the constitution (US perspective here), then you'll deal with the frustration and do your best to convince the voters of your position. This is clearly what Mr. Kerry is saying he wants to do.

An analogy is public safety. Those who want "maximum safety" will argue for the ability of police offiers to stop and frisk anyone walking on a public street. Those who support the constitution (the 4th amendment here) will say - No, police can't do that, even if it would reduce crime. A person who was himself a victim of crime might very well feel a bit frustrated.

Originally Posted by njtom

Well, the first amendment protects all speech; it makes no distinction between sincere disagreement and intentionally planted disinformation.

If you believe a vital policy initiative is being deliberately thwarted by liars, then you're going to feel frustrated. But if you believe in the supremacy of the constitution (US perspective here), then you'll deal with the frustration and do your best to convince the voters of your position. This is clearly what Mr. Kerry is saying he wants to do.

He did raise question of how to curb alleged lies then stated that the first amendment blocks the government from simply eradicating those lies by force. But there are other ways of stemming the tide, including as discussed in the mentioned "twitter files". You claim that he implied somewhere that the curbing should be done by getting better at telling the truth instead. Where exactly did he say that?