Your rights....going fast

cannabis said:
state, i don't know about federal...
Click to expand...
as i've been saying, the US Constitution doesn't allow the federal government to restrict speech in any way, shape, or form. the states would have to rely on their own constitutions for that issue.

cannabis said:
then threatening to kill someone is protected speech.....?
Click to expand...
why not? it's just words, is it not? threatening to kill the president should be no crime because it's just words, but the feds have ignored the constitution for a long time now.....
 
cannabis said:
you're an idiot. the speech is indeed restricted.
Click to expand...

It's not a simple speech act that is restricted but the act of making a credible threat against another. You are just trying to use vulgar sophistry to pretend there is no possiblity for a legitimate right or that the first amendment is invalid. The courts are able to make the distinction.
 
annata said:
It'sa LOT to read, and it's a lot about war.

Maybe when im not so tired out. It's a worthy discusiion, maybe the terms we are using is throwing me off.
The BPR guarantess individual rights, they cannot be limited. A right, by law is just that -it "stands alone" Inalienable.

They can be restricted in times of war -what i was posting earlier - but what is this war? GWOT? ( Global War on Terror) - is perpetual war.
So how do the restrictions ever end? If they never end -they(BOR) do not exist.

It has no endgame, think the Crusades. Then you throw in non-state actors, and the US is using GWOT to bypass the 4th.
:whoa: I'm exausted. I'll be sure to to come back to this thread, and we can flesh it out. G.Nite.
Click to expand...

The restrictions never do end and that's precisely the goal! That's why it's specifically referred to as a "war". :(
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
It's not a simple speech act that is restricted but the act of making a credible threat against another. You are just trying to use vulgar sophistry to pretend there is no possiblity for a legitimate right or that the first amendment is invalid. The courts are able to make the distinction.
Click to expand...
how are the courts able to make that distinction?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how are the courts able to make that distinction?
Click to expand...

It is quite simple. In one instance the laws are clearly intended to protect the rights of a citizen from credible threats against their life. This is a valid interest of the state. Invalid laws are those intended only to control speech and limit the free exchange of ideas.

Most of the States had freedom of speech and freedom of the press protections coexisting with laws against libel and slander. The founders did not understand it to mean what you claim. These laws are not restrictions on freedom of speech or of the press, properly understood.
 
bravo said:
Obama/Democrats and YOUR rights.....

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

Proposed law scheduled for a vote next week originally increased Americans' e-mail privacy. Then law enforcement complained. Now it increases government access to e-mail and other digital files.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...ithout-warrants/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title
Click to expand...

This is for you, Bravo. I don't know if you've heard of this guy, Lyndon LaRouche, but his videos contain a wealth of conspiracies and horror scenarios that will keep you posting for days! He compares Obama to Nero. You know, the guy who liked fiddle music around the camp fire.

From puppet governments to nuclear war there's something for everyone. I'll be looking forward to your future posts. :)


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top