Can pinheads explain the contradiction? ...Probably not!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But alas. there is no logical support for your position.

A difficulty in discriminating a media corporation is no excuse to stop trying.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a fascist lawyer fuckstick.

LMFAO... Just because it's difficult to deny and parse constitutional rights, doesn't mean we can't keep trying!

 

[Lao Tse]

The courts opinion in CU v FEC is logically supported. The first amendment does not allow for restriction of speech based on the identity of the speaker. The importance of distinctions between corporate vs non corporate speakers is unclear. Further, there is no basis for distinctions between different types of corporate speakers (i.e., non profit, for profit and for profit media corporations) and it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between those while impossible to police economic exchanges between the parties.

The state should not be TRYING to regulate political speech and freedom of the press to begin with.

You are an idiot and advocating a position wherein politicians will be empowered to choose who may speak and who may not.

It is logical, but weak, and doesn't justify the position. Difficulties in making distinctions doesn't mean the endeavor should be abandoned.

And corporate personhood is still too far a step.

Undue corporate influence should be reduced in society by controlling the amount of political speech they may participate in. And since they're not people, there is no problem with that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is logical, but weak, and doesn't justify the position. Difficulties in making distinctions doesn't mean the endeavor should be abandoned.

And corporate personhood is still too far a step.

Undue corporate influence should be reduced in society by controlling the amount of political speech they may participate in. And since they're not people, there is no problem with that.

Well, since the corporation building the mosque is not "people" there should be no issue regarding their religious freedom to build the mosque. If corporations are not afforded freedom of speech, how can they be afforded freedom of religion? You can't hack up the 1st Amendment, and apply it as you see fit, depending on circumstance! It either applies IN WHOLE, or it doesn't apply at all! You can't have it BOTH ways!

 

[Lao Tse]

Well, since the corporation building the mosque is not "people" there should be no issue regarding their religious freedom to build the mosque. If corporations are not afforded freedom of speech, how can they be afforded freedom of religion? You can't hack up the 1st Amendment, and apply it as you see fit, depending on circumstance! It either applies IN WHOLE, or it doesn't apply at all! You can't have it BOTH ways!

I beleive the mosque should be disallowed on security grounds. Calling something a religion should not mean it should be universally allowed.

What if i developed a religion around molesting children? Should I be able to force acceptance of my projects onto society?

 

[DamnYankee]

I beleive the mosque should be disallowed on security grounds. Calling something a religion should not mean it should be universally allowed.

What if i developed a religion around molesting children? Should I be able to force acceptance of my projects onto society?

Why not? Environmentalists do it.

 

[Timshel]

It is logical, but weak, and doesn't justify the position. Difficulties in making distinctions doesn't mean the endeavor should be abandoned.

When it threatens a fundamental right, yes it does.

And corporate personhood is still too far a step.

And nothing but a straw man.

Undue corporate influence should be reduced in society by controlling the amount of political speech they may participate in. And since they're not people, there is no problem with that.

The state (not your fascist one but the one supported by our founders and our legal traditions) has no legitimate interest in limiting the influence of certain segments of society. Whether they be Muslim or commercial.

It's not undue CORPORATE influence that you are complaining about, moron. If that were the case then you would be banning ALL corporations from engaging in speech acts. You are discriminating based on corporate identity. You only want to restrict the speech of SOME corporations.

Protection from that is the very reason for the first amendment. The state is not capable of determining what amount of influence is due to a certain segment of society. Granting it such a power would certainly lead to abuse.

 

[Lao Tse]

When it threatens a fundamental right, yes it does.

Rights go to individuals. Not corporations. you're presuming your outcome, and arguing circularly.

And nothing but a straw man.

No. They and you are arguing for corporate personhood.

The state (not your fascist one but the one supported by our founders and our legal traditions) has no legitimate interest in limiting the influence of certain segments of society. Whether they be Muslim or commercial.

The state does have an interest in balancing the public discourse when it is become too unbalanced.

It's not undue CORPORATE influence that you are complaining about, moron. If that were the case then you would be banning ALL corporations from engaging in speech acts. You are discriminating based on corporate identity. You only want to restrict the speech of SOME corporations.

Yes. And that's doable. corporations are not people. Equal protection does not apply. you're still presuming you've won and are arguing circularly.

Protection from that is the very reason for the first amendment. The state is not capable of determining what amount of influence is due to a certain segment of society. Granting it such a power would certainly lead to abuse.

we are in a greater danger from abuse by corporations, who also run government. Obviously. Look at the stupid things these judges assert.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I beleive the mosque should be disallowed on security grounds. Calling something a religion should not mean it should be universally allowed.

What if i developed a religion around molesting children? Should I be able to force acceptance of my projects onto society?

I actually agree with you on the security issue, and I think that will ultimately play a role in this. Freedom of Religion doesn't give people the right to do whatever they please in the name of their religion. Constitutionality often rests on who's constitutional rights are more fundamental. While Muslims do have the constitutional right to build the mosque, the people who live and work in proximity, also have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

You are trying (seemingly) to establish companies have NO rights under the constitution. They neither have free speech rights OR religious freedom rights. I disagree with that, because companies are always comprised of individuals.

Let's say I own my own company, we make widgets. The Feds are proposing the government should implement a 50% excise tax on widgets, which would effectively kill my business and profits. Politician A is in favor of the Fed plan, politician B is opposed, so naturally, I support politician B. You are saying that I have no political voice in this matter, I can't speak politically, you've tied my hands. I can't contribute to politician B, who is looking out for my best interests, because I am a company. All of my income comes from my company, any donation I personally make, would come from my company, and according to you, can't be used to influence politics.

 

[Lao Tse]

I actually agree with you on the security issue, and I think that will ultimately play a role in this. Freedom of Religion doesn't give people the right to do whatever they please in the name of their religion. Constitutionality often rests on who's constitutional rights are more fundamental. While Muslims do have the constitutional right to build the mosque, the people who live and work in proximity, also have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

You are trying (seemingly) to establish companies have NO rights under the constitution. They neither have free speech rights OR religious freedom rights. I disagree with that, because companies are always comprised of individuals.

Let's say I own my own company, we make widgets. The Feds are proposing the government should implement a 50% excise tax on widgets, which would effectively kill my business and profits. Politician A is in favor of the Fed plan, politician B is opposed, so naturally, I support politician B. You are saying that I have no political voice in this matter, I can't speak politically, you've tied my hands. I can't contribute to politician B, who is looking out for my best interests, because I am a company. All of my income comes from my company, any donation I personally make, would come from my company, and according to you, can't be used to influence politics.

Companies are not sentient enough to have rights.

You can contribute personally from your wages you take home.

 

[Timshel]

Rights go to individuals. Not corporations. you're presuming your outcome, and arguing circularly.

No, we have been through the steps. An individual has a right to speak. An individual has a right to join in concert with others to engage in political speech.

The state does have an interest in balancing the public discourse when it is become too unbalanced.

No, it does not. In your fucking fascist utopia your principle may be true but not here. The first amendment makes it fucking abundantly clear that the founders did not intend for the politicians to regulate or control the public discourse. You are spouting horseshit that makes a mockery of our system of government and call for unlimited powers for the state.

Yes. And that's doable. corporations are not people. Equal protection does not apply. you're still presuming you've won and are arguing circularly.

I have won. By restricting the rights of some groups you are restricting the rights of its individual members.

The state is empowered by the will of the people. If the state regulates the will of the people and decides how much influence each segment is "due" it will free itself from that bond and become dictatorial. But that is what you advocate.

 

[Timshel]

I actually agree with you on the security issue, and I think that will ultimately play a role in this. Freedom of Religion doesn't give people the right to do whatever they please in the name of their religion. Constitutionality often rests on who's constitutional rights are more fundamental. While Muslims do have the constitutional right to build the mosque, the people who live and work in proximity, also have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

This is nonsense. How does this infringe on the rights of those that live near? What security issue?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is nonsense. How does this infringe on the rights of those that live near? What security issue?

It's not nonsense, Mr. Constitutional Law... look it up!

The issue of Constitutionality rests on individual fundamental rights. Do they carry more weight and are they of greater importance than the rights of the greater number of people in the community? You are a "state interest" arguer... you should understand, if you allow construction of a facility that 68% of America is strongly opposed to, you might have a little security problem. The State has an interest to protect the general public, and the manpower alone, which might be required to secure this facility, and prevent violence, riots, protests, vandalism, and even terrorist acts, all have to be weighed against the right of Muslims to practice their religious beliefs. Which is of greater fundamental importance in terms of constitutional rights? That would be for the SCOTUS to decide, I suppose. But there is certainly a constitutional argument to be made here. You have the "rights" of two sides in play, but for some odd reason, you seem to only see one side.

 

[Timshel]

It's not nonsense, Mr. Constitutional Law... look it up!

The issue of Constitutionality rests on individual fundamental rights. Do they carry more weight and are they of greater importance than the rights of the greater number of people in the community? You are a "state interest" arguer... you should understand, if you allow construction of a facility that 68% of America is strongly opposed to, you might have a little security problem. The State has an interest to protect the general public, and the manpower alone, which might be required to secure this facility, and prevent violence, riots, protests, vandalism, and even terrorist acts, all have to be weighed against the right of Muslims to practice their religious beliefs. Which is of greater fundamental importance in terms of constitutional rights? That would be for the SCOTUS to decide, I suppose. But there is certainly a constitutional argument to be made here. You have the "rights" of two sides in play, but for some odd reason, you seem to only see one side.

So if the brown shirts kick and scream enough the state must limit the rights of their victims? That sounds like a rational basis for state limits on fundamental rights to you? Really?

 

[Timshel]

Your position would encourage intolerance, Ditzy.

 

[Timshel]

And unrest.

 

[Lao Tse]

So if the brown shirts kick and scream enough the state must limit the rights of their victims? That sounds like a rational basis for state limits on fundamental rights to you? Really?

People concerned about virulent theocrat dogma are not brownshirsts.

The brownshirts are more akin to the islamofascists and their defenders like you.

Islam is an international military organization. An absurdist and traitorous misunderstanding of the consitution doesn't mean we must allow foreign hostile invasion under the banner of tolerance.

Why are you such a wafer?

 

[Lao Tse]

No, we have been through the steps. An individual has a right to speak. An individual has a right to join in concert with others to engage in political speech.





No, it does not. In your fucking fascist utopia your principle may be true but not here. The first amendment makes it fucking abundantly clear that the founders did not intend for the politicians to regulate or control the public discourse. You are spouting horseshit that makes a mockery of our system of government and call for unlimited powers for the state.



I have won. By restricting the rights of some groups you are restricting the rights of its individual members.

The state is empowered by the will of the people. If the state regulates the will of the people and decides how much influence each segment is "due" it will free itself from that bond and become dictatorial. But that is what you advocate.

Individual members can always act outside of a group. Restricting the group is not restricting the members. That's assinine, and why you have failed again.

Dictatorial is when all messages are controlled by the public-private cartels.

it's not onerous to limit speech to real media organizations anyway. It's just not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So if the brown shirts kick and scream enough the state must limit the rights of their victims? That sounds like a rational basis for state limits on fundamental rights to you? Really?

Your position would encourage intolerance, Ditzy.

And unrest.

Haahaa... My position is the Constitutional Law you claim to know so much about, Stringy. It's weird, one moment, I think we are both on the same side of the argument here, and then... you go off into leftist-la-la-land, and I lose you completely. It's just bizarre to me!

I didn't say anything about "brown shirts" did I? That was YOUR assessment, based on some cynical fucked up thought rolling around in your own bigoted pinhead, that wasn't what Dixie posted.

You have admitted 'states interest' is a compelling reason to limit or restrict fundamental individual rights in some cases, where the compelling state interest is greater than the right of the individual. Numerous examples of this exist... you can't build a movie theater showing porn, with the screen facing the interstate highway next to it! They won't let you do that, it's a violation of your right to free speech, but there is a greater state interest in protecting the public, and providing public safety for all citizens, it's not just about your right to freedom of expression.

Regardless of what you want to believe about the "intentions" behind it, this mosque has become a pariah for Islamic-Christian relations, it will never succeed in doing what it proposes to do. This makes the intent a logical fallacy, and untenable. Not to mention, through this whole debate, you have argued from the perspective it has been established, that not building the mosque at this location amounts to denial of freedom to worship, and that has yet to be established. I personally think that is a difficult criteria for the Pro-Mosquers to meet, because NY wouldn't be denying their freedom to practice their religion. They just can't build this.

 

[Lao Tse]

Haahaa... My position is the Constitutional Law you claim to know so much about, Stringy. It's weird, one moment, I think we are both on the same side of the argument here, and then... you go off into leftist-la-la-land, and I lose you completely. It's just bizarre to me!

I didn't say anything about "brown shirts" did I? That was YOUR assessment, based on some cynical fucked up thought rolling around in your own bigoted pinhead, that wasn't what Dixie posted.

You have admitted 'states interest' is a compelling reason to limit or restrict fundamental individual rights in some cases, where the compelling state interest is greater than the right of the individual. Numerous examples of this exist... you can't build a movie theater showing porn, with the screen facing the interstate highway next to it! They won't let you do that, it's a violation of your right to free speech, but there is a greater state interest in protecting the public, and providing public safety for all citizens, it's not just about your right to freedom of expression.

Regardless of what you want to believe about the "intentions" behind it, this mosque has become a pariah for Islamic-Christian relations, it will never succeed in doing what it proposes to do. This makes the intent a logical fallacy, and untenable. Not to mention, through this whole debate, you have argued from the perspective it has been established, that not building the mosque at this location amounts to denial of freedom to worship, and that has yet to be established. I personally think that is a difficult criteria for the Pro-Mosquers to meet, because NY wouldn't be denying their freedom to practice their religion. They just can't build this.

you agree on corporations because stringfield knows that internationalist fascism will attempt to control america, and he's a traitor, but you're still just being idealistic.

Regarding islam, he's still against america, and so is lying, and you're still for america so can see the threat of Islam/Shariah fascism.

So we have a patriot versus a traitor, and you're just confused on one issue. The corporatist issue.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you agree on corporations because stringfield knows that internationalist fascism will attempt to control america, and he's a traitor, but you're still just being idealistic.

Regarding islam, he's still against america, and so is lying, and you're still for america so can see the threat of Islam/Shariah fascism.

So we have a patriot versus a traitor, and you're just confused on one issue. The corporatist issue.

Here's what you are confused about, a "corporation" is comprised of people. It is not a stand alone entity operating of its own volition. It is entirely composed of people, boards of directors in some cases, stockholders in some cases, employees, administrators, managers, accountants, CFOs and CEOs... all PEOPLE! INDIVIDUALS!

I believe "corporations" have both, the right to contribute politically, AND the right to freedom of religious expression. HOWEVER, in both cases, I feel there is a legitimate 'state interest' on circumstantial regulations or restrictions, when the case can be made for it. Corporations can contribute politically, but they are restricted on the amount they can contribute... Muslims can worship Islam, but can be restricted on where they build mosques, just as Christians can be restricted on where they build churches... Just as Stringy's Porn Drive-In, can be restricted from showing porn to interstate travelers!