Err...I'm sorry, but I really don't see how this is shitting on the first amendment. Someone suppressing the petition would be a violation of 1st amend., but creating it - however misguided and stupid it is - is pretty much an exercise of 1st amend. rights as I see it.
Are they stupid for doing it? Sure. But they have the right to, just as he has the right to speak out for tighter gun control.
They want Piers Morgan deported for speaking his mind on gun control. As such, that would be the government saying "You can't say {X} and stay in this country."
Now, if those same people who had signed the petition had boycotted any advertisers on Piers Morgan's show, or they had written letters complaining about him to the network... that's all well and good.
The instant that they want to government to do something to him because of something he said... because of his opinion on guns... that's violating the spirit of the First Amendment. Outside of certain bounds (threats of violence, inciting a riot, other things like that) he can say whatever the fuck he wants and the government can't stop him from saying it. (If he swears profusely on live TV, they can fine him, but that's different.) He does have to deal with the ramifications of what he's saying (i.e. people can boycott his advertisers, he can lose viewers, etc.) but he can't be deported for calling a gun nut a gun nut.
I give you, the second the government steps in and censors him because of his stance on gun control that's a violation. A bunch of uneducated, prejudiced people ASKING the govt. to step in and censor someone is not a violation.
If the govt. actually does it, that would be a violation.
I can get 1000000 people to sign a petition that the govt. should make me king of shoes, and I should be able to cut people based on what shoes they're wearing - that's free speech and opinion. The second the government says "Ok, you're the king of shoes, go nuts" - that would be a problem. People do crazy ill informed shit all the time. The fact they can file the petition at all means we haven't started stomping out free speech yet.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Are they stupid for doing it? Sure. But they have the right to, just as he has the right to speak out for tighter gun control.
Or am I missing something from the article?
no subject
Now, if those same people who had signed the petition had boycotted any advertisers on Piers Morgan's show, or they had written letters complaining about him to the network... that's all well and good.
The instant that they want to government to do something to him because of something he said... because of his opinion on guns... that's violating the spirit of the First Amendment. Outside of certain bounds (threats of violence, inciting a riot, other things like that) he can say whatever the fuck he wants and the government can't stop him from saying it. (If he swears profusely on live TV, they can fine him, but that's different.) He does have to deal with the ramifications of what he's saying (i.e. people can boycott his advertisers, he can lose viewers, etc.) but he can't be deported for calling a gun nut a gun nut.
no subject
If the govt. actually does it, that would be a violation.
I can get 1000000 people to sign a petition that the govt. should make me king of shoes, and I should be able to cut people based on what shoes they're wearing - that's free speech and opinion. The second the government says "Ok, you're the king of shoes, go nuts" - that would be a problem. People do crazy ill informed shit all the time. The fact they can file the petition at all means we haven't started stomping out free speech yet.
Note the "yet" in that last statement.