"The right to free speech" in reality translates to "The right to conventional, relatively non-controversial speech in a setting that will not upset anyone or be particularly noticed by anyone who might be offended or threatened by said speech."
Uh huh.
The second you attempt to break out of any one of those tight boundaries, you WILL find yourself in jail/kicked out of school/fired/persecuted or in some way silenced or punished.
Um, of course they will. You see, those are the consequences of your free speech. There has never been any real disagreement on this issue, you have free speech, and you have the responsibility to use it wisely.
Pretending like "free speech" means "say whatever the fuck I want with impunity, while simultaneously forcing others to accept my speech without exercising their own free speech (which is your primary complaint)" is bullshit.
Free speech never meant "say what you like with impunity" and anyone claiming otherwise is full of it.
"No, there's not. "Legal limbo" is a bullshit concept perpetuated by fascists."
God would you shut the fuck up with the "fascist" already, it's like you're a two year old and you learned a new word you can't stop using.
"What contradictory laws? If you are in US territory then US laws apply. All US laws. Including the Bill of Rights!"
And when you're standing in Customs and have not yet been admitted to the US, which is the example you seem to have completely failed to locate in this thread, you're not in US territory.
"And if you're not in US territory, then US government agencies (such as the DHS) have no jurisdiction!"
Except if I get stopped at the border but have not yet entered the US, they sure as fuck DO claim jurisdiction. Except, according to you, they're outside the US, so the US has no jurisdiction...
Or maybe you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and you scream fascist constantly because thet's the height of your debate ability...
"By the way, you have yet to provide any concrete support for your argument whatsoever."
By the way, that sentence proves you're either illiterate, have not read the thread as I instructed (twice now) or you're a liar.
You choose.
Meanwhile, you have not yet provided any proof you're not a fucking retard, while your posts provide strong evidence that you are.
"You can be on United States soil without having the right to travel freely within the United States - it's not a difficult concept to grasp"
It's also not accurate and doesn't even apply in this case.
"Oh, and nice way to completely ignore the link I gave that explains the exemption that forms the entire basis of the article to which this discussion is attached."
I didn;t ignore it, I read it earileir before you posted it. It doesn't in any way refute me. Did you actually read it?
So you tried and failed. I suspect we'll see a reapeat coming any time now...
"After a quick glance at your posting history, I see you are indeed a troll"
I accept your admission that you can't refute me, despite trying and failing repeatedly.
I find it incredibly funny that you think you can magically make things that prove you wrong disappear by accusing the person who proves you wrong of being a troll.
"You have repeatedly conducted personal attacks on people presenting arguments that are both more logical and independently verifiable,"
They're wrong. I have yet to see ONE piece of evidence showing otherwise, and logical means nothing as the entire idea of a zone in the US that isn't in the US is not logical, but legal in nature.
It must suck for you that the best response you have to being wrong is "you're a troll".
"it won't do any good, as you have thoroughly convinced me (and no doubt more than a few others) of your malicious insincerity. Reply to This"
It's called an expectacny effect. It's what people like you have to deal with when you're so colored by your own biases that you see trolls where there are none.
"I repeat my sibling's request for an example of why these laws apparently don't apply to non-citizens, however, as you have proven yourself a troll through your responses to the sibling post,"
You know what? Fuck you.
You honestly think your dismissal of your own obvious ignorance makes me a troll? The answers to your questions are in the thread, but you're either too lazy to find them or to stupid to understand them, so I'm a troll.
So riddle me this dickhead, if a person hasn't cleared customs yet, but according to you is on US soil, and is required by their originating country, upon being identified, to be deported to their home country, but saqid deportation is in direct contradiction to US law, which law applies?
Right, there's your example. As though something so obvious needed to be clarified.
Now, our discussion is finished, I'm right, you're not, and you can fuck off.
I've already explained in the thread why not. In short, there are many occasions where a traveler is in Limbo and cannot be easily discerned to be in one country or another.
"There's no need for Constitutional law debate here;"
You're right, my point is obvious and irrefutable, while yours has nothing to do with mine.
"And any "scholar" who says otherwise is just a fascist wanker trying to justify his own totalitarianism!"
Or maybe they understand that it's possible for two sets of contradictory laws to apply at the same time with no clear delineation between which one is more apropriate.
And maybe they don't take the very childish view that any discussion of the Constitution not applying in some cases must come from a fascist, even though the context of the discussion makes such an assertion patently moronic.
"Wrong. The courts in the US have decided that certain specific rights normally granted under the laws of the United States are not applicable before someone has been permitted entrance to the country."
No, you're wrong. I find it funny that you're saying "the courts held that you do not get full Constitutional protection until you enter the US" but ignore that obvious follow on that if you are in Customs, but have not yet cleared, you are not in the US.
So, now that your own point has proven me right, explain how a location could be "in the US" but not "in the US" simultaneously?
Or is it that, in fact, CUSTOMS IS NOT CONSIDERED US SOIL, and you've preoven me right without realizing it?
"If you believe that the "border" (not sure exactly what you're referring to here, as a border is a one-dimensional line - perhaps you meant to say "immigration area"?) is not part of the US, "
I don't, and your straw man is obvious and stupid.
"The US has something called the Supreme Court, and they have judged that an exception to the Fourth Amendment [wikipedia.org] can be made during border searches. If customs in the airport is not considered US soil, how could the Supreme Court of the United States issue a judgement on the application of the laws of the United States in that area?"
Because US laws apply to Customs Agents, regardless of the fact that they are not legally on US soils.
If you think that point proves anything other than your ignorance of the law, you're in for a rude awakening.
"I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering replying to you..."
I'm not either, as all you've done is display your ignorance and fail at refuting me.
Because I love assholes who displat their stupidity like you have.
NO, you fucking AC twat, customs is NOT considered US soil. You are not, legally on US soil until you have cleared Customs and actually entered the US.
Now, fuck off and die AC, hopefully in a way that is especially painful and traumatic.
No, and you're changing your argument again because your stupid attempt to act like "listen" didn't apply, when I just proved to you that it did.
"You read my post, you replied, that means you paid attention."
No, I have no fucking idea what you said. I paid attention to nothing, I simply reacted reflexively. You fail again.
"The fun thing is, I'm forcing you to keep responding, wasting more of your time and attention, getting your blood pressure up, making you rant and rave. I love it, please keep going."
FUnny, I seem to recall you tracking me down a day later to defend your stupid joke. I am repeatedly telling you I don't care about what you say, yet you think you're "getting my blood pressure up" when the reality is, my co workers and I are marvelling at how stupid you are, and how ridiculous your attempts to get over on me are.
So far, you've changed your attack every time you reply, and yet you think you've done something other than prove exactly what I said about you.
And I've seen you use that stupid "I'm getting you to respond" attack befor, it's tired just like your jokes.
"You've only shut me up in your own, delusional world."
Then reality is my world.
You cannot deny that no matter what you've done, you've gotten your moronic arguments crushed at every opportunity, and now you're acting as though your own compulsion to reply is somehow a win for you.
Of course, if you weren't so stupid, you'd realize you replied to me, so by your own argument you lose.
Again.
Now, you cannot help yourself, you are so mentally ill, so totally intellectually flawed, that you must, must reply to defend yourself, no matter how idiotic your replies are, and no matter how stupid and hypocritical you appear.
Please deny it so I can post your quotes and prove it.
"I assure you that the laws of the United States (including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) do apply in any area of the airport you may happen to find yourself in after getting off a plane that has landed on US soil"
Customs is in the airport and is NOT considered US soil. How do you think they continually circumvent the 4th amendment? Look it up and get back to me when you realize I'm right and you are totally wrong.
Stop involving yourself in a concversation about subjects on which you are ignorant.
"The non-citizen's laws don't apply inside the US (admittedly, the reverse doesn't seem to be true if you're a British hacker).
I still haven't seen a single example of a US law that shouldn't apply to non-citizens within the US. You have, however, made a lot of noise and personal insults."
The border isn't inside the US. It's a quasi legal zone, which is where most of these unlawful search problems arise from. But you obviously didn't know that did you? So why do you think that irrelevant point matters? As to the person insults, if you want a fucking citation, use google. I'm not your mom, and I'm not going to hand hold you to a specific example of a very common problem in international law.
"Try being informative, that was all I asked for."
I was, and no, your post was [citation needed], not "I'd like you to be more informative" or any version of that.
You tried playing snide and got shut down. Maybe if you'd simply not been an ass and instead said "could you provide some examples" you'd have got them, but obviously, that wasn't what you were after despite your post facto protestation to the contrary.
1. to give attention with the ear; attend closely for the purpose of hearing; give ear. 2. to pay attention; heed; obey (often fol. by to): Children don't always listen to their parents."
That's how idiot. Get a dictionary and learn to use the words you're asking about before you say something else profoundly stupid.
"I think you might have some kind of manic disorder."
Of course you say that, I pointed out the you're a hypocritical idiot, of course you'd try to attack me, you have no other options left.
You got shut the fuck up. Displaying your ignorance of common words and their usage only reinforces my previous point about your reading ability and lack of intelligence. that you resorted to failed attempts at pedantry to gloss over the fact that you were stupid enough to cry free speech while simultaneously complaining about my use of free speech.
You got shut the fuck up again. It won't change, no matter how many sad little end runs you try to make around your own ignorance and hypocrisy.
Lobster Quadrille (965591) decided that a citation was needed for something as obvious as the idea that an individual cannot logically recieve all the rights and protections of the US Constitution.
Well genius, tell me how the Constitution can apply to a Non-US citizen when said non-US citizen's own laws contradict the Consitution? Do you need a citation for that obvious and common occurence, or do you now understand why you saying "[citation needed]" is nothing but a cheap attempt to sound intelligent that failed?
You don't need a citation to know that two sets of contraqdictory laws cannot both apply at the same time. Well, intelligent people don't at least...
"You're laboring under a misconception you seem to think I give a fuck about your opinion, and will waste time listening to you make stupid excuses and equivocations."
Please point out where I said, "won't read" as opposed to "won't listen to"? Ah, I see, I didn't and you're wrong.
"You know what I see when you post? "Wah wah wah, someone thinks differently than me, make them stop, wah wah!""
That's probably because you can't read worth a fuck, as that sentence never appeared in any of my posts.
"Free speech: get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."
You mean like when I said to you "your jokes aren't funny, and I don't give a fuck about your stupid excuses?" and you responded with "get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."
It's nice to see you don't mind adding hypocrisy to your list of crimes.
And I still don't intend to listen to your stupid excuses and equivocations, you're simply not intelligent enough to waste my time with, apart from shutting you the fuck up for fun like I did here.
Slashdot Mirror
"Before, you were an expert in constitutional law. "
Never claimed that. I was simply making a point that you were wrong about.
Please prove otherwise with a quote you lying AC fuck.
"Mr. Retardo."
My bad, didn't see you signed your post, but why post AC if you're going to sign?
Nine minutes.
You're so obsessed it took you less than ten minutes to reply.
Sorry, you're too pathetic after that to do anything but laugh at.
Again.
Uh huh.
Um, of course they will. You see, those are the consequences of your free speech. There has never been any real disagreement on this issue, you have free speech, and you have the responsibility to use it wisely.
Pretending like "free speech" means "say whatever the fuck I want with impunity, while simultaneously forcing others to accept my speech without exercising their own free speech (which is your primary complaint)" is bullshit.
Free speech never meant "say what you like with impunity" and anyone claiming otherwise is full of it.
@ you. Right now.
I mean damn, loser, look at how fast you responded...
Let me get my coworkers so we can laugh at you some more.
PS I would have read your post, but as soon as I saw you bring up moderation I knew you knew I had won, so I didn't bother.
I'm the AC who replied to you earlier in this thread, the one with years of experience as a substance abuse treament professional.
As someone who spent a great deal of time and energy learning about the ins and outs of substance use/abuse, I can say, unequivocally
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
"No, there's not. "Legal limbo" is a bullshit concept perpetuated by fascists."
God would you shut the fuck up with the "fascist" already, it's like you're a two year old and you learned a new word you can't stop using.
"What contradictory laws? If you are in US territory then US laws apply. All US laws. Including the Bill of Rights!"
And when you're standing in Customs and have not yet been admitted to the US, which is the example you seem to have completely failed to locate in this thread, you're not in US territory.
"And if you're not in US territory, then US government agencies (such as the DHS) have no jurisdiction!"
Except if I get stopped at the border but have not yet entered the US, they sure as fuck DO claim jurisdiction. Except, according to you, they're outside the US, so the US has no jurisdiction...
Or maybe you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and you scream fascist constantly because thet's the height of your debate ability...
"By the way, you have yet to provide any concrete support for your argument whatsoever."
By the way, that sentence proves you're either illiterate, have not read the thread as I instructed (twice now) or you're a liar.
You choose.
Meanwhile, you have not yet provided any proof you're not a fucking retard, while your posts provide strong evidence that you are.
"You can be on United States soil without having the right to travel freely within the United States - it's not a difficult concept to grasp"
It's also not accurate and doesn't even apply in this case.
"Oh, and nice way to completely ignore the link I gave that explains the exemption that forms the entire basis of the article to which this discussion is attached."
I didn;t ignore it, I read it earileir before you posted it. It doesn't in any way refute me. Did you actually read it?
So you tried and failed. I suspect we'll see a reapeat coming any time now...
I answered your question.
You called me a troll, even though my answer is legally correct.
That pretty much says it all about your ability to engage in this conversation with any level of honesty or intelligence.
"After a quick glance at your posting history, I see you are indeed a troll"
I accept your admission that you can't refute me, despite trying and failing repeatedly.
I find it incredibly funny that you think you can magically make things that prove you wrong disappear by accusing the person who proves you wrong of being a troll.
"You have repeatedly conducted personal attacks on people presenting arguments that are both more logical and independently verifiable,"
They're wrong. I have yet to see ONE piece of evidence showing otherwise, and logical means nothing as the entire idea of a zone in the US that isn't in the US is not logical, but legal in nature.
It must suck for you that the best response you have to being wrong is "you're a troll".
"it won't do any good, as you have thoroughly convinced me (and no doubt more than a few others) of your malicious insincerity.
Reply to This"
It's called an expectacny effect. It's what people like you have to deal with when you're so colored by your own biases that you see trolls where there are none.
"I repeat my sibling's request for an example of why these laws apparently don't apply to non-citizens, however, as you have proven yourself a troll through your responses to the sibling post,"
You know what? Fuck you.
You honestly think your dismissal of your own obvious ignorance makes me a troll? The answers to your questions are in the thread, but you're either too lazy to find them or to stupid to understand them, so I'm a troll.
So riddle me this dickhead, if a person hasn't cleared customs yet, but according to you is on US soil, and is required by their originating country, upon being identified, to be deported to their home country, but saqid deportation is in direct contradiction to US law, which law applies?
Right, there's your example. As though something so obvious needed to be clarified.
Now, our discussion is finished, I'm right, you're not, and you can fuck off.
"Why not?"
I've already explained in the thread why not. In short, there are many occasions where a traveler is in Limbo and cannot be easily discerned to be in one country or another.
"There's no need for Constitutional law debate here;"
You're right, my point is obvious and irrefutable, while yours has nothing to do with mine.
"And any "scholar" who says otherwise is just a fascist wanker trying to justify his own totalitarianism!"
Or maybe they understand that it's possible for two sets of contradictory laws to apply at the same time with no clear delineation between which one is more apropriate.
And maybe they don't take the very childish view that any discussion of the Constitution not applying in some cases must come from a fascist, even though the context of the discussion makes such an assertion patently moronic.
"Wrong. The courts in the US have decided that certain specific rights normally granted under the laws of the United States are not applicable before someone has been permitted entrance to the country."
No, you're wrong. I find it funny that you're saying "the courts held that you do not get full Constitutional protection until you enter the US" but ignore that obvious follow on that if you are in Customs, but have not yet cleared, you are not in the US.
So, now that your own point has proven me right, explain how a location could be "in the US" but not "in the US" simultaneously?
Or is it that, in fact, CUSTOMS IS NOT CONSIDERED US SOIL, and you've preoven me right without realizing it?
"If you believe that the "border" (not sure exactly what you're referring to here, as a border is a one-dimensional line - perhaps you meant to say "immigration area"?) is not part of the US, "
I don't, and your straw man is obvious and stupid.
You're just pissed because I proved you wrong too, which, honestly, is pretty fucking sad.
"The US has something called the Supreme Court, and they have judged that an exception to the Fourth Amendment [wikipedia.org] can be made during border searches.
If customs in the airport is not considered US soil, how could the Supreme Court of the United States issue a judgement on the application of the laws of the United States in that area?"
Because US laws apply to Customs Agents, regardless of the fact that they are not legally on US soils.
If you think that point proves anything other than your ignorance of the law, you're in for a rude awakening.
"I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering replying to you..."
I'm not either, as all you've done is display your ignorance and fail at refuting me.
"If it is not US soil, how can the USA legislate about it ?"
HOLY SHIT! I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT.
That's exactly my point.
Because I love assholes who displat their stupidity like you have.
NO, you fucking AC twat, customs is NOT considered US soil. You are not, legally on US soil until you have cleared Customs and actually entered the US.
Now, fuck off and die AC, hopefully in a way that is especially painful and traumatic.
"But you did pay attention, didn't you?"
No, and you're changing your argument again because your stupid attempt to act like "listen" didn't apply, when I just proved to you that it did.
"You read my post, you replied, that means you paid attention."
No, I have no fucking idea what you said. I paid attention to nothing, I simply reacted reflexively. You fail again.
"The fun thing is, I'm forcing you to keep responding, wasting more of your time and attention, getting your blood pressure up, making you rant and rave. I love it, please keep going."
FUnny, I seem to recall you tracking me down a day later to defend your stupid joke. I am repeatedly telling you I don't care about what you say, yet you think you're "getting my blood pressure up" when the reality is, my co workers and I are marvelling at how stupid you are, and how ridiculous your attempts to get over on me are.
So far, you've changed your attack every time you reply, and yet you think you've done something other than prove exactly what I said about you.
And I've seen you use that stupid "I'm getting you to respond" attack befor, it's tired just like your jokes.
"You've only shut me up in your own, delusional world."
Then reality is my world.
You cannot deny that no matter what you've done, you've gotten your moronic arguments crushed at every opportunity, and now you're acting as though your own compulsion to reply is somehow a win for you.
Of course, if you weren't so stupid, you'd realize you replied to me, so by your own argument you lose.
Again.
Now, you cannot help yourself, you are so mentally ill, so totally intellectually flawed, that you must, must reply to defend yourself, no matter how idiotic your replies are, and no matter how stupid and hypocritical you appear.
Please deny it so I can post your quotes and prove it.
And you get shut the fuck up. Again.
Read the header.
Now read it again.
Hopefully by now, you understand the point.
"You're still retarded."
I'll accept that as your admission that you know I'm right and realize you're not smart enough to debate the point.
"I assure you that the laws of the United States (including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) do apply in any area of the airport you may happen to find yourself in after getting off a plane that has landed on US soil"
Customs is in the airport and is NOT considered US soil. How do you think they continually circumvent the 4th amendment? Look it up and get back to me when you realize I'm right and you are totally wrong.
Stop involving yourself in a concversation about subjects on which you are ignorant.
"The non-citizen's laws don't apply inside the US (admittedly, the reverse doesn't seem to be true if you're a British hacker).
I still haven't seen a single example of a US law that shouldn't apply to non-citizens within the US. You have, however, made a lot of noise and personal insults."
The border isn't inside the US. It's a quasi legal zone, which is where most of these unlawful search problems arise from. But you obviously didn't know that did you? So why do you think that irrelevant point matters? As to the person insults, if you want a fucking citation, use google. I'm not your mom, and I'm not going to hand hold you to a specific example of a very common problem in international law.
"Try being informative, that was all I asked for."
I was, and no, your post was [citation needed], not "I'd like you to be more informative" or any version of that.
You tried playing snide and got shut down. Maybe if you'd simply not been an ass and instead said "could you provide some examples" you'd have got them, but obviously, that wasn't what you were after despite your post facto protestation to the contrary.
"How can you listen to me, fool?"
"Listen:
1. to give attention with the ear; attend closely for the purpose of hearing; give ear.
2. to pay attention; heed; obey (often fol. by to): Children don't always listen to their parents."
That's how idiot. Get a dictionary and learn to use the words you're asking about before you say something else profoundly stupid.
"I think you might have some kind of manic disorder."
Of course you say that, I pointed out the you're a hypocritical idiot, of course you'd try to attack me, you have no other options left.
You got shut the fuck up. Displaying your ignorance of common words and their usage only reinforces my previous point about your reading ability and lack of intelligence. that you resorted to failed attempts at pedantry to gloss over the fact that you were stupid enough to cry free speech while simultaneously complaining about my use of free speech.
You got shut the fuck up again. It won't change, no matter how many sad little end runs you try to make around your own ignorance and hypocrisy.
Lobster Quadrille (965591) decided that a citation was needed for something as obvious as the idea that an individual cannot logically recieve all the rights and protections of the US Constitution.
Well genius, tell me how the Constitution can apply to a Non-US citizen when said non-US citizen's own laws contradict the Consitution? Do you need a citation for that obvious and common occurence, or do you now understand why you saying "[citation needed]" is nothing but a cheap attempt to sound intelligent that failed?
You don't need a citation to know that two sets of contraqdictory laws cannot both apply at the same time. Well, intelligent people don't at least...
"You're laboring under a misconception you seem to think I give a fuck about your opinion, and will waste time listening to you make stupid excuses and equivocations."
Please point out where I said, "won't read" as opposed to "won't listen to"? Ah, I see, I didn't and you're wrong.
"You know what I see when you post? "Wah wah wah, someone thinks differently than me, make them stop, wah wah!""
That's probably because you can't read worth a fuck, as that sentence never appeared in any of my posts.
"Free speech: get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."
You mean like when I said to you "your jokes aren't funny, and I don't give a fuck about your stupid excuses?" and you responded with "get used to it or get off the Internet, you freak."
It's nice to see you don't mind adding hypocrisy to your list of crimes.
And I still don't intend to listen to your stupid excuses and equivocations, you're simply not intelligent enough to waste my time with, apart from shutting you the fuck up for fun like I did here.