White House Pettition to Have Piers Morgan Deported

[fd15k]

He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the 2nd ammendment anymore or less than the First. He'll happpily use your first ammendment to destroy your second ammendment though, huh.

I don't believe in many things that you or other people may believe in. I might make fun of your beliefs, but I will not take your rights away from you. Nor will I call for the government to do so.

What amazes me is how many of our fellow gun owners pretend to stand a high moral ground when it comes to politics, but in reality they are just promoting self interests and utilizing double standards.

 

[HKFooey]

You have the legal right to petition whatever you like. That is your right and nobody is denying that.

But with that being said, there are no legal grounds for removal. A petition does not allow you to circumvent the law. You can have a million signatures, but none of it matters if no law has been broken.

All those petitions do is give the huddled masses a place to vent their spleens and think they've done a great thing for the country. Best case, it will get a one line note on the presidents mornng report that he reads over his morning coffee.

Agreed, the petition is will likely have no effect beyond a venue for people to voice their distain with Piers' comments. The current administration wouldn't be inclined to deport him since it essentially agrees with him.

Good times

 

[chariot13]

I don't believe in many things that you or other people may believe in. I might make fun of your beliefs, but I will not take your rights away from you. Nor will I call for the government to do so.

What amazes me is how many of our fellow gun owners pretend to stand a high moral ground when it comes to politics, but in reality they are just promoting self interests and utilizing double standards.

There isn't a double standard though. He'll happpily use our second ammendment against our first. However he's to much of a coward to do it himself. Just the same as he uses our first against our second, 'his loyalty is in his majesty's men & arms (their second ammendment) & to take away our first ammendment is no less than being able to take away our second ammendment via our own first. My friend.

 

[fd15k]

There isn't a double standard though. He'll happpily use our second ammendment against our first. However he's to much of a coward to do it himself. Just the same as he uses our first against our second, 'his loyalty is in his majesty's men & arms (their second ammendment) & to take away our first ammendment is no less than being able to take away our second ammendment via our own first. My friend.

I see, so you don't claim a higher moral ground. You are simply the same kind of person as Morgan. Self-interest driven person that is.

 

[chariot13]

I see, so you don't claim a higher moral ground. You are simply the same kind of person as Morgan. Self-interest driven person that is.

Self interest is against the King. A shilling is acceptable. In the name of the King, as Morgan is.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

I believe that when you visit another country, you show respect for that country's laws and culture. If you can't do that, get the fvck out. For that reason, I signed the petition.

 

[parallax]

speaking of the whitehouse e-petition, how about if one of us, starts a new e-petition that would make a federal law that trumps state laws addressing the need for a castle law doctrine and a stand your ground law that covers all states, instead of each state having a totally different law addressing these issues. looks easy enough to start one on the website.

 

[Squidly]

speaking of the whitehouse e-petition, how about if one of us, starts a new e-petition that would make a federal law that trumps state laws addressing the need for a castle law doctrine and a stand your ground law that covers all states, instead of each state having a totally different law addressing these issues. looks easy enough to start one on the website.

Sounds great. I would support it. Our rulers on the other hand would not be so receptive.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I've addressed that already. Protections under Bill of Rights are extended to all people in the United States with very few narrow exceptions. There are even fewer exceptions when it comes to the permanent residents (what is
Mr. Morgan's actual immigration status ?). There is a number of Supreme Court decisions dealing with such type of discrimination. Finally, I am talking about the principle. I want people to speak freely in my country, even
if I disagree with what they are saying. OP obviously has a different stance, and is trying to escalate it.

I believe the correct avenue is to be vocal about your concerns with his sponsors and his employers. Licenses to broadcast on the public airwaves are granted with the caveat that broadcasters operate in the public interest. Perhaps giving Mr. Morgan unfettered access to the public airwaves is not in the public interest. The FCC determines that. Write to them as well.

Also, his sponsors buy him air time based on the expectation of profits from advertising on his show. If they understand that Mr. Morgan is driving business away from them then they may not want to buy air time for him.

 

[fd15k]

I believe the correct avenue is to be vocal about your concerns with his sponsors and his employers. Licenses to broadcast on the public airwaves are granted with the caveat that broadcasters operate in the public interest. Perhaps giving Mr. Morgan unfettered access to the public airwaves is not in the public interest. The FCC determines that. Write to them as well.

Also, his sponsors buy him air time based on the expectation of profits from advertising on his show. If they understand that Mr. Morgan is driving business away from them then they may not want to buy air time for him.

Same story, different tactic - can't convince him, so shut him up. That's kind of weak.

 

[Heathb]

Not only are you on a firearms forum arguing with others who are simply trying to protect our rights, you are doing so in defense of a foreign citizen who openly wants to take them away. All the while, hiding behind your self-righteous, elitist attitude trying to come across like you are the real voice of freedom. I often read this forum and have never been compelled to post anything until now due to my utter disappointment and irritation.

 

[fd15k]

All the while, hiding behind your self-righteous, elitist attitude trying to come across like you are the real voice of freedom.

I'm not hiding, I'm speaking up. And yes, I try to overcome my bias and defend all rights equally. I'm glad you decided to make yourself relevant as well.

 

[BillB1960]

Same story, different tactic - can't convince him, so shut him up. That's kind of weak.

Horse manure, if someone came to your house and started complaining about your room decor, your choice of colors, your ratty furniture would you invite them to stick around or show them the door? How about if he started calling all of his friends and telling them what a trailer park refugee you were and how you needed to rent a dumpster, empty your house and start over again?

Are you getting the picture here or is it too difficult to see from up there on that high horse?

 

[Suge206]

Horse manure, if someone came to your house and started complaining about your room decor, your choice of colors, your ratty furniture would you invite them to stick around or show them the door? How about if he started calling all of his friends and telling them what a trailer park refugee you were and how you needed to rent a dumpster, empty your house and start over again?

Are you getting the picture here or is it too difficult to see from up there on that high horse?

what a terrible anology

 

[Mutoman]

I look at this not as a tool to show our frustration with Mr. Morgan's comments about our citizens. Show it with numbers and show it with our potential voting power. The only problem is that anything under a million votes is merely an annoyance, not a stance.

 

[parallax]

the whitehouse e-petition site, is for entertainment purposes only, nothing will ever come of any petition, I am sure there is no legal requiremnet for any government branch to take any action on any petition that is posted. "unfortunately."

 

[HKFooey]

I'm not hiding, I'm speaking up. And yes, I try to overcome my bias and defend all rights equally. I'm glad you decided to make yourself relevant as well.

A couple of things about the 1st amendment here, you seem to think that the 1st amendment allows anyone to say whatever they want without any repercussions. That's not true and it never has been – Ask Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, or any other public figure. Just because you are free to say something doesn't mean you should.

Second – what Piers did was not an expression of free speech – it was Subversion and is not protected under the 1st amendment. Let me repeat that – what Piers said and did is not considered protected free speech.

Here is a Supreme Court case that covers a similar situation back in the 70's

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

This case surrounds a foreign national denied entry to the US because he was to give a speech about Marxism and it was deemed subversive to our government. A Foreign national does not have the right to enter our country and attack our constitution. Let's be clear here – Piers Morgan is not just expressing an opinion here, he is attacking gun owner's constitutional rights and that is not protected under the 1st amendment. You can disagree all you want but the Supreme Court has ruled so there is already precedent.

I appreciate your position, in that you want to apply rights equally across the board. I certainly like to keep things fair myself, but your egalitarian position is misguided in this instance. Piers is out of line – over 50,000 people have signed the petition and more are sure to follow after the holidays.

I completely admit that the petition is mostly symbolic and will have little effect. The 25,000 votes merely allow the Whitehouse to acknowledge the petition. It does not force the administration to acknowledge it – they can ignore it until pigs fly. The petition for Texas to secede the union has over 120,000 signatures and the administration has yet to address it, and they probably never will.

So the point here is that the 1st amendment doesn't let you say whatever you want – no matter what you think. The 1st amendment protects you from legal action but not from public backlash. It is to protect you from the tyranny of the government not the ire of the people.

Be reasonable

One more thing - Merry Christmas!

 

[fd15k]

A couple of things about the 1st amendment here, you seem to think that the 1st amendment allows anyone to say whatever they want without any repercussions. That's not true and it never has been – Ask Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Michael More, or any other public figure. Just because you are free to say something doesn't mean you should.

Second – what Piers did was not an expression of free speech – it was Subversion and is not protected under the 1st amendment. Let me repeat that – what Piers said and did is not considered protected free speech.

Here is a Supreme Court case that covers a similar situation back in the 70's

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

This case surrounds a foreign national denied entry to the US because he was to give a speech about Marxism and it was deemed subversive to our government. A Foreign national does not have the right to enter our country and attack our constitution. Let's be clear here – Piers Morgan is not just expressing an opinion here, he is attacking gun owner's constitutional rights and that is not protected under the 1st amendment. You can disagree all you want but the Supreme Court has ruled so there is already precedent.

I appreciate your position, in that you want to apply rights equally across the board. I certainly like to keep things fair myself, but your egalitarian position is misguided in this instance. Piers is out of line – over 50,000 people have signed the petition and more are sure to follow after the holidays.

I completely admit that the petition is mostly symbolic and will have little effect. The 25,000 votes merely allow the Whitehouse to acknowledge the petition. It does not force the administration to acknowledge it – they can ignore it until pigs fly. The petition for Texas to secede the union has over 120,000 signatures and the administration has yet to address it, and they probably never will.

So the point here is that the 1st amendment doesn't let you say whatever you want – no matter what you think. The 1st amendment protects you from legal action but not from public backlash. It is to protect you from the tyranny of the government not the ire of the people.

Be reasonable

One more thing - Merry Christmas!

First of all, you keep on mixing legal repercussions and non-legal ones. I don't care if the guy gets fired, especially since I am myself an at-will employee. But we are talking about denying one's rights for mere disagreements with his position.

Now, your cited case deals with denial of visitor visa to a foreign national. US Government is free to do that at any time for no particular reason, I am aware of that. Moreover, even when visa is issued, CBP officials are empowered to deny entry to an individual at the port of entry. Questionable practice, still irrelevant though. Finally, Mr. Morgan is likely a permanent resident (I have raised that question earlier, nobody seems to have an answer) - immigration status that provides to the bearer much higher level of Constitutional protections, since they are entitled to become citizens.

Here is some more on the subject from a well-respected Constitutional Scholar and Libertarian :

4. Deportation for speech alone: The rule is unclear. The leading case, Harisiades v. Shaugnessy (1952), which upheld Harisiades' deportation for being a Communist, speaks about nearly unlimited Congressional power over deportation, but that language is in the section holding that the deportation of Harisiades didn't violate the Due Process Clause. The Court's conclusion that the deportation of Harisiades didn't violate the Free Speech Clause (Harisiades had argued that the deportation violated both clauses) rested on the conclusion that active membership in the Communist Party was substantively unprotected by the First Amendment — both for citizens and noncitizens. (This view that the First Amendment doesn't protect Communist Party membership was the law at the time,)

Lower court cases are likewise mixed. For the view that Harisiades doesn't generally let the government act based on otherwise protected speech by aliens, see American-Arab Anti-Discrim. Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1995), reversed on other grounds, 525 U.S. 471 (1999); Parcham v. INS, 769 F.2d 1001 (4th Cir. 1985). For the view that Harisiades gives Congress nearly unlimited immigration power over aliens, see Price v. INS, 941 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Volokh Conspiracy - Free Speech and Non-Citizens:

 

[BillB1960]

what a terrible anology

Really, so you think it's OK to go to another country and get on television and trash their citizens calling them "dangerous" "stupid" and "idiots"?

 

[HKFooey]

We are not talking about denying his rights - We are talking about holding him accountable for his actions.

You really don't understand that do you - You think that anyone can say whatever they want without consequence. You're very wrong