Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[LV426]

The court did not say that.

Then why did they order her to remove the flag? Because, as you said, it causes harm to the child.

So the 1A is superseded by personal safety, which is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time.

Remember, a year ago you were saying the flag can't possibly cause anyone harm, and now your new argument hinges on the flag causing someone harm.

So that's a flip-flop.

ou are making a huge jump in logic that is completely contrary to the court's opinion.

The court's opinion was that the flag causes the child harm.

You said for years that the flag couldn't do that.

Now you're saying it does, for the sake of your argument.

The father only appealed when the child's attorney wanted the mother's home to be the primary residence. If they had joint custody and her home was not the primary residence the flag is not an issue.

The court ruled that the flag causes harm to the child, therefore the 1A doesn't fucking apply and she needs to take it down.

You said for years that the Confederate Flag couldn't cause anyone harm, and now you're saying the exact opposite.

 

[Flash]

But you just argued it was in this case from NY.

Not even close. There is no such legal principle as inherent threat and I don't think any court has ever used that term. Something that could be a bad influence on a kid--alcohol, pornography, drugs, etc. are not "inherent threats."

If the conditions of the father's house are worse the flag could even be overlooked as less negative than the alternative.

The court did not even say the flag was "harmful" but that "its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis,...

It is one factor in considering the child's welfare.

 

[LV426]

But if that flag had been there when she was given custody it would not be causing harm. It is only an issue because it resulted in a change in conditions of the home. If the child was not "bi-racial" it would not be an issue.

If a flag can change the conditions of someone's home so dramatically that it creates an unsafe environment, then it's not protected by free speech.

The court was right to order that shit down, and more courts are going to do the same now.

 

[LV426]

It also said she (and all other Americans and non-citizen residents) have the constitutional right to display the flag.

They did not say she has an absolute right to do that.

She can do it so long as she's not causing anyone harm, but the flag is inherently harmful, so it will always cause harm.

And now the courts have set in motion the ability for anyone to sue to have that stupid flag removed from anywhere and everywhere.

Unless they are in a child custody situation with a black or bi-racial kid there is no precedent that applies.

But why in those cases?

Is the Confederate Flag harmful or something?

You've been saying for years that it wasn't.

So I guess you were bullshitting everyone then?

 

[LV426]

How have you ever been harmed by a symbol? Hurting your feelings don't count.

So now you're back to arguing that symbols can't cause harm, even after you just argued that it was right for the judge to order a woman to take down a symbol because it causes harm.

 

[LV426]

Only if there is another case involving a bi-racial child custody and a Confederate flag.

Not at all.

These judges established precedent now, so expect to see a lot of lawsuits.

The precedent they established was that the flag causes harm.

Remember, for years, you said it didn't.

Now you say it does.

 

[Flash]

So now you're back to arguing that symbols can't cause harm, even after you just argued that it was right for the judge to order a woman to take down a symbol because it causes harm.

A child and child custody are very different than Evince. A flag can't hurt her and she does not get the same protection from the state as a child.

An adult is free to have sex but that does not apply to children. See the difference?

It is very dishonest of you to refuse to recognize the issues of child custody and try to equate those to our constitutional rights. The article you posted clearly said it is her 1st amendment right to display that flag. It did not say she is free to raise a child in any conditions she chooses.

What if she teaches that child that different races should be separate and that whites are superior? Is that more or less harmful than a flag?

 

[LV426]

There is no such legal principle as inherent threat and I don't think any court has ever used that term.

Fine, imminent threat then.

And clearly the courts believe that the Confederate Flag poses an inherent/imminent threat since they ordered that woman to remove it for the welfare of her child.

Something that could be a bad influence on a kid--alcohol, pornography, drugs, etc. are not "inherent threats."

Right, but the Confederate Flag is, and that's why the courts ruled she has to take it down...because it's mere presence creates harm to the child.

If the conditions of the father's house are worse the flag could even be overlooked as less negative than the alternative.

Stop making bad faith assumptions, Flash.

The court did not even say the flag was "harmful" but that "its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis,...

How would the flag's presence change the circumstances?? The court is saying it's mere PRESENCE affects the welfare of the child.

So the flag doesn't even need to do anything other than be a flag in order to be a threat or cause harm.

 

[LV426]

A child and child custody are very different than Evince. A flag can't hurt her and she does not get the same protection from the state as a child.

But a flag can cause harm, which is why the judges ordered her to remove it.

An adult is free to have sex but that does not apply to children. See the difference?

I do not see where you're going with this, and I really don't want to when it comes to sex and children.

It is very dishonest of you to refuse to recognize the issues of child custody

Issues of child custody...related to this woman's 1A expression that isn't absolute since a judge can simply just order her to take the dumb thing down.

So you seem to be saying the 1A is absolute, except when it comes to the welfare of a child, who are the only ones who can be harmed by symbols.

 

[Flash]

Not at all.

These judges established precedent now, so expect to see a lot of lawsuits.

The precedent they established was that the flag causes harm.

Remember, for years, you said it didn't.

Now you say it does.

Again, the only precedent (which any court can ignore) applies to child custody cases in NY. The court never said it was harmful but a change in conditions.

I don't really think you believe this case applies to all U. S. residents--you are just arguing out your ass.

“Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed-race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance,”

 

[LV426]

The article you posted clearly said it is her 1st amendment right to display that flag.

EXCEPT for when it causes harm or affects the welfare of her child.

You are constantly leaving that part out.

A flag can't hurt her and she does not get the same protection from the state as a child.

So you're saying that symbols can cause harm, but only to kids?

It did not say she is free to raise a child in any conditions she chooses.

And one of those conditions would be expressing her 1A right in support of the Confederacy and White Supremacy.

So your 1A rights are not absolute when it comes to flags, and are superseded by the welfare of children.

Is that going to be your final position, or are you going to keep revising it?

What if she teaches that child that different races should be separate and that whites are superior? Is that more or less harmful than a flag?

That is what the flag represents. So...it's the same.

A court ruled that flag harms a child, and if it can harm a child, it can harm an adult.

So like I said, expect to see a lot of lawsuits in the next few years of courts ruling that Confederate flags must be removed for the sake of children's welfare.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What the fuck Dutch

Eat shit you misogynous dick lips

Are you saying my assessment is incorrect?

 

[LV426]

Again, the only precedent (which any court can ignore) applies to child custody cases in NY. The court never said it was harmful but a change in conditions.

Change in conditions...TO WHAT, FROM WHAT?

This is like "The Civil War was over States' Rights"...states' rights TO WHAT?

 

[LV426]

I don't really think you believe this case applies to all U. S. residents--you are just arguing out your ass.

Of course not, because this was in NY State Court.

But federal court likes precedent. Loves it, actually.

“Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests

Why is it not in their best interests? Is the Confederate Flag harmful or something? What isn't in the child's best interests, do you think Flash?

as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed-race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance,”

Well, the mother ain't gonna do that if she's waving around Confederate Flags.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Every instinct you have is wrong.

You should re-evaluate your life choices because they led you to this; trying to pick a fight with someone on an anonymous forum because they don't accommodate your entitlement.

Okay. My apologies. I could have sworn you once mentioned you were a young woman. Your behavior is what indicates your education and emotional stability level as does for everyone.

 

[LV426]

Okay. My apologies. I could have sworn you once mentioned you were a young woman. Your behavior is what indicates your education and emotional stability level as does for everyone.

There is no excuse for your behavior.

You're just a prick.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no excuse for your behavior.

You're just a prick.

There are explanations for behavior. Excuses are not always relevant.

LOL. My ex once said something like that. She said "You're an asshole!". I said, "Honey, I'm a retired Naval officer and an airline captain, what the fuck did you expect?"

She had served in the Army as an operating room tech then became a Nurse. She had her own anal retentive aspects herself, but that wasn't the problem.

Regardless, I'm mellowing with age. The use of popular herbs and teas seems to help.

Have you thought about going back to school? It's easier than it looks. I was completely unfocused on school and mostly focused on parties when I earned my BA with a C+ GPA. Ten years later, I took one class for a MS degree and liked it so much I finished the course all As and one fucking asshole who gave me a B+.

 

[LV426]

My ex once said something like that. She said "You're an asshole!". I said, "Honey, I'm a retired Naval officer and an airline captain, what the fuck did you expect?"

Big shocker that she's your ex.

She was enlisted in the Army as an operating room tech then became a Nurse. She had her own anal retentive aspects herself, but that wasn't the problem.

You were the problem, obviously.

 

[Flash]

Of course not, because this was in NY State Court.

But federal court likes precedent. Loves it, actually.

Federal courts do not follow precedent from state courts. The precedent regarding displaying the flag is that is her constitutional right and that precedent is not going to be overturned.

Why is it not in their best interests? Is the Confederate Flag harmful or something? What isn't in the child's best interests, do you think Flash?

That is what the court said, but it did not say it was "harmful." The kid hits, swears, and spits and has behavior problems so they obviously need to do anything to reduce conflict between parents.

She has two other kids so the flag must not be harmful to them.

Well, the mother ain't gonna do that if she's waving around Confederate Flags.

There are no flags to wave around. It is painted on a small rock by her driveway, something kids are unlikely to spend much time looking at.

 

[Flash]

Change in conditions...TO WHAT, FROM WHAT?

Those are the words of the NY court. The family court and child guardian had no issue with the rock (with the flag). It only only brought up in the husband's appeal.