Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): We need a Constitutional amendment that controls speech

Posted by: ST on November 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Frightening:

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) – A Democratic representative is calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow for some legislative restriction of freedom of speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

He reportedly made these comments while speaking at the Annesbrooks HOA candidate Forum held last month.

In a video obtained by the website, Johnson asserts that “corporations control … patterns of thinking.”

“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”

Yeah, how DARE any part of our private lives be, well, be privatized. Bigger government is the answer, dammit!

Here’s the video, courtesy of CNSNews:

Of course, none of us are strangers to how far liberals have openly stated they are willing to go in order to control the free speech rights of others – our celebrity President himself acted in a manner unbefitting the dignity of the Presidency by cowardly mocking the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United during his 2010 State of the Union address where several of the Justices were in attendance – and where he knew they could not respond. In his speech, he urged Congress to “correct” the Court’s ruling by passing legislation to fix “some of its problems.” Uh huh. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sam Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas (not in attendance) were not amused – nor were the Republicans who were there. The the Democrats in the audience stood and clapped loudly, however. Natch.

Not only is there that, but for decades other far left Democrats like Barack Obama have been trying to shove the “Fairness Doctrine” back down the throats of the American people, not because they believe in actual “fairness” (something they don’t believe in no matter WHAT the issue is – in spite of their protestations to the contrary), but because it’s been proven time and time again that they simply cannot compete in the radio/TV broadcast arena when it comes to conservative news/talk commentary. So their way of “leveling the playing field” is by pushing for legislation which will force conservative talk shows to give “equal time” to the opposition. Many already do bring on liberal guests to their shows, but they don’t do it by government force – nor should they. Rush doesn’t bring liberal guests on, and that’s who they’re really targeting anyway. Chilling.

All that being said, what with the various calls for speech-limiting legislation coming from Democrat public figures and politicos (and let’s not forget about moderate Republicans like McCain and the “McCain-Feingold” nightmare), I can’t recall anyone else in Congress recent past or present calling for an actual Constitutional amendment limiting it, as Johnson did in October (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that one). Congressional legislation is bad enough, but fortunately can be repealed with the right Congress and President. Constitutional amendments, on the other hand are hard to pass – and even harder to repeal.

Johnson is a fruitcake, of course, and was probably knows it’s unlikely he’ll see anything like this really get off the ground (unless he had a lot more fellow Democrats in the US House) but still, it’s deeply disturbing to know just how far his mindset goes on this. I wonder how many more on his side agree with him but are too chicken to just come out and say it because they realize how it would be used against them by the opposition?

Inquiring minds want to know …

RSS feed for comments on this post.

10 Responses to “Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): We need a Constitutional amendment that controls speech”

Comments

  1. Sefton says:

    We need an amendment to control idiots from putting morons into public office. Not sure how to word it, but perhaps a quiz on Guam’s geological stability would be a good start.

  2. ST says:

    Love it, Sefton!

  3. Dave Dooling says:

    Incredibly dangerous. This would put the government in the position of deciding which corporations have “free” speech, and ultimately licensing reporters and editors.

  4. redgypsy says:

    This would be almost comical if it weren’t so utterly dangerous and frightening. Maybe Johnson is a fruitcake, but now that he’s said it, the idea is out in the open.

    Sorta like the old adage about never saying the word “divorce” to your mate–once the idea is out there, it kind of oozes around and picks up steam (or in this case, more nasty ooze from like-minded others).

    Just when you think the libs can’t come up with anything else to negate the Constitution, here they come… oozing out from under their rocks.

  5. The constitutional liberties that allow corporations, or anyone else for that matter, to express their opinions are the very same liberties that allow Johnson and his commiecrat cohorts to spout their mindless drivel.

  6. Carlos says:

    Uh-huh.

    Here’s a better idea, Mr. Johnson, sir: How ’bout members of Congress be required to live under the same rules the rest of us peons do, and have to make the same “investments” into such things as Social Security and Medicare and not have your platinum insurance packages or your special retirement packages and pays (last I heard, when a person is retired by management – that’s We, the People, in case you don’t know – involuntarily they rarely get a golden parachute the likes of which most of us never even dream of) so that we no longer have a ruling class like we do now?

    And the best way to get such a thing started is to get rid of idiots like you, Mr. Johnson, who obviously feels threatened by such vulgarity as “private money.”

    Speaking of which, if you happen to succeed in silencing corporate money, will that silence extend to union monetary influence, too?

  7. Kate in MI says:

    And of course, limiting the free speech of corporations would also extend to limiting the free speech of unions, right?
    No?
    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!!

  8. Steve Skubinna says:

    Isn’t there a danger that adding another amendment might cause the Constitution to tip over?

  9. Great White Rat says:

    Isn’t there a danger that adding another amendment might cause the Constitution to tip over?

    Why bother with an amendment? Obama, AKA ‘our Lord and Savior’, has said that the Constitution is an ‘imperfect’ document with ‘deep flaws’, which explains why he (oops, sorry, He should be capitalized when speaking of the deity) feels he can disregard it at will.

  10. Carlos says:

    Personally I think there should be a constitutional amendment controlling the speech of politicians, one that would mandate jail sentences for lying, no exceptions and no “depends on what the meaning of “is,” is-type lawyer crap.

    That would be one way to rid our society of politicians…they’re worse than cockroaches and have been around nearly as long, and certainly have done at least as much damage to mankind. Never been sick being exposed to a cockroach, but politicians make me puke all the time!