Slashdot Mirror
Subversives In South Carolina Mostly Safe
sabt-pestnu sends in an update on our story about South Carolina and subversives. "According to Eugene Volokh, the Raw Story article has got it backwards. Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were being enacted nationwide. What brought Raw Story's attention to it may be that South Carolina is once again trying to repeal the archaic law. And in any event, a half-century-old case (Yates vs. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)) took most of the teeth out of such laws."
How do I withdraw my application?
How is this law, real or not, any different than thousands of other laws on the books in various states that aim to make something illegal by requiring that you register your 'group', business or service?
Anyone wanting to do something contrary to the morals of the standing legislators is likely to fall foul of one or more laws with the same miasmal qualities. For instance, look at sex laws; they are nothing but attempts to stop 'subversive' elements of local society, or at least make it so you can fine them if they do those 'subversive' things, and generally make them unwelcome in the community.
I say we should hang those that enact such laws if it were not so hypocritical ....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
What's the point of being subversive if it's not forbidden?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Westlaw says that the cited statute dates back to 1951, when a lot of anti-Communist statutes were being enacted nationwide.
When I went to college in the 70s, I had a number of jobs at the same state U I was attending. All University employees, including me, were required to sign an oath that they were "not a member of the Communist Party or any other organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government by force or violence". Naturally, I had to wonder what kind of namby-pamby insurrectionists Moscow was infiltrating our way, if they were willing to violently overthrow the government, but not lie about their willingness to do so!
This is not quite a dead issue. Quite recently, a Quaker hired to teach remedial math at Cal State East Bay lost her job after somebody noticed that she'd amended the mandatory oath she'd signed when she was hired. (The oath requires the signer to "support and defend" the California and U.S,. constitutions; not wanting to violate her religious principles, she'd inserted the word "nonviolently".) She was eventually rehired after the usual legal squabble, which ended with the state AG ruling that the unamended oath did not obligated the signer to do military service!
Al Queda of South Carolina has declared a victory!
While McCarthy's investigations were quite vile and unconsitutional, they were not witch hunts. A witch hunt implies looking for something that's not there. Oddly enough, most of the evidence that came out after the fact confirmed a great deal of those he investigated to in fact be communists.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) threw out laws that banned private sex acts between consenting adults.
Even after 2003, there is still anti-gay discrimination when it came to consenting acts between teenagers compared to the same acts between consenting heterosexual couples:
1) I think some states still have laws on the books that make gay sex a felony, those laws are theoretically enforceable against a 17-year-old gay couple.
2) Likewise, in states where there is no Romeo and Juliet law, straight couples can have sex all they want if they get married first. Gay couples, well, good luck getting a marriage license outside of a handful of states. Even when the laws are non-discriminatory, the application can be - some prosecutors may look the other way when an 18 year old man has sex with a 17 year old almost-woman, but they'll be happy to throw the book at an 18-year-old man with a 17-year-old male youth. Or the prosecutor may not be biased but the parents of the girl may be willing to not press charges but the homophobic parents of the 17 year old boy may insist on it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You are playing a definition game. McCarthy wasn't simply looking for Communists, he was looking for a threat to the American way of life. Oddly enough, it wasn't there.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The government should just stop recognizing marriage.
(the big downside there would likely be companies that stopped extending health benefits to families of employees. I can't think of any other real big ones (most other stuff can easily be handled with contracts))
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The witch hunt analogy is very appropriate. In Salem, etc. they persecuted witches (or anyone who wasn't Bible thumpin protestant or they just didn't like). Didn't matter if the witches/communists were actually bad people doing bad things. The possibility that you might be a communist/witch was enough to get you or your career burned at the stake depending on the century. So yes, McCarthy was on a witch hunt. The morality and wisdom of such a hunt is left as an exercise for the reader.
Please reference section 42 of your Slashdot User Agreement, and you will find it necessary to submit yourself to 30 lashes with a wet noodle, and turn in your geek card. You should hurry before your late.
Sorry about that. Ford only wrote "Mostly Harmless", not "Completely apathetic". You should have been aware of the rules. They were clearly posted.
In the cellar...
In the disused lavatory...
Clearly marked with the sign "Beware Of The Leopard"...
In the bottom of the locked file cabinet...
Under a mostly dead parrot.
Like I said, clearly posted.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of /.?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
No, we weren't talking about gitmo ...
Uh, what? "Quaker" is to The Society of Friends what "Mormon" is to the Church of Latter Day Saints; a colloquial term for church members. I suppose that some Quakers out there might be offended by the term, but I've never heard of it, and there are actually a decent number of them in my area.
As for preaching against their fellow man... no, not really. The Quakers are pretty well known for teaching peace, tolerance, equality and universal love. They were one of the first groups to outright condemn slavery in the United Sates, and also one of the first to take direct action against it (Quaker craftsmen, particularly shipbuilders, refused to make anything that would be used for the purpose of slavery, including those used for the slave trade; they also ran many of the stops on the underground railroad, and often provided material assistance to escaped blacks once in the North). They were also one of the first modern sects to allow female ministers, and have long supported and worked for equal rights for men and women.
They're also shockingly badass for radical pacifists, throughout their history they have maintained a reputation for being downright fearless when it comes to issues of faith vs. the powers that be. It took some serious stones to tell the king of England that you will not remove your hat in his presence because the only authority which you respect is the Lord, even more when the circumstances are such that the king is pissed you're not following the state religion in which he is the voice of God.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
so why the hell do so many americans defy universal healthcare?
It's the irrational fear that somebody somewhere is getting something that they didn't earn or deserve.
Everyone I've talked to who opposes universal healthcare believes the government, by increasing restrictions and tightening regulations, will make the situation worse rather than better, being an often poorly run government.
Not everyone who doesn't think as you do is an idiot. There's no need to attack and marginalize people who disagree with you. Hopefully that's not the kind of person you want to be, and you'll re-examine your perceptions in the future.