"It seems like you should be able to protest as long as you stay a reasonable distance away and aren't harassing people directly."
I just educated myself and I have to reverse what I said. I thought this happened
1. WBC are assholes who protest funerals 2. A law was passed to make them stand a certain distance away 3. That law was struck down on free-speech grounds
But that is wrong. Here is what actually happened:
1. WBC are assholes who protest funerals 2. Many laws were passed to make them stand a certain distance away (also with time constraints) 3. That scenario played out at a funeral; the law was obeyed 4. Later, the grieving father saw some vitriol on the internet and sued WBC for infliction of emotional harm 5. Several rulings later, the Supreme Court found that the speech was protected
So I was wrong. Those laws have not been struck down so far as I can tell. WBC posted their vitriol on the internet and that was found to be protected. I agree with that. The internet is one of many appropriate places for that kind of disgusting nonsense.
It seems to me that we agree on most things except that I think it is important to note that burning crosses is more than just trespass, it is making threats and carries additional meaning morally and legally. You didn't specifically school me but your response caused me to school myself, so I thank you for that. Even more than I want to win an argument, I want to be right, and I think now I'm right and so are you.
Calling it "among the most commonly prosecuted felonies" is cute, but your own cite shows that loitering prosecutions account for one percent of all the prosecutions on that list.
It's only a can of words to shallow thinkers. Moral relativism is abundantly self-evident to anyone who applies even a small amount of critical thought.
Most people agree on most moral issues because most people share the same kind of moral brain. That doesn't lessen the obviousness of the relativism. Also, moral relativism does not in any way invalidate the providence of moral determinations. Society is still justified in getting together and deciding what behaviors are punishable.
Oh, okay. Use whatever meaning you like just so long as you don't try to wriggle out of the question by waving your hands around and calling things ambiguous. What legal theory is that? I'm looking for a legal theory that says certain private activities are inviolable, whereas others are subordinate to other people's offensive speech. So, for instance, WBC can't go into a public park and protest your company picnic where you paid the fee to rent the picnic tables in the park, but they can go into a public cemetery to protest your dead daughter's funeral where you paid the fee to have your funeral.
I almost always agree with the Supreme Court but I think they completely miffed that case, where they said WBC was protected when ruining soldiers' funerals. The law was narrowly tailored and did not prevent WBC from disseminating their message to widespread audiences. There are all sorts of proceedings that we don't allow WBC to ruin and I don't understand why a private funeral can't be one of them.
Burning a cross on a black man's lawn, by the way, *IS* speech (in addition to trespassing), it just isn't protected speech. Likewise, in my opinion, at funerals.
You asked if there is a way to prohibit peaceful assemblies of people on public property who just happen to have a different message than some other neighboring event, without also condoning crap like "free speech zones". Yes. You would do exactly that. You would prohibit the thing you want to prohibit, without resorting to things like free speech zones. This isn't hard stuff. If you want to do A and not B, then you do A and not B. If you want to prohibit picketing within a thousand feet of a funeral without condoning free speech zones, then you prohibit picketing within a thousand feet of a funeral without condoning free speech zones. Why is this difficult? They are different, you want one and not the other, so you do one and not the other. You do what we do with every single law in existence, which is to disallow one behavior while distinguishing it from neighboring behaviors.
You got modded up by people with similarly shallow thinking, the kind of people who think every single little law is a concession to inevitable tyranny.
"is there any way we can prohibit peaceful assemblies of people on public property who just happen to have a different message than some other neighboring event, without also condoning crap like "free speech zones"?"
Oh, thank you for asking, the answer is YES. Now that you know, please stop pretending the answer is no, it would really help advance the discussion.
Of course that is true. In America we want to balance public safety with public freedom. It's a very hard balance. In my opinion we are currently out of balance toward too many of the wrong kind of gun, whereas European countries (for instance) are out of balance toward too few guns.
Criminals buy guns from non-criminals. Gun-shop owners abide by laws. If you don't allow the sale of 50-round clips then jackasses like this murderer won't have access to 50-round clips.
I suspect that was already clear to you but you chose to ignore it.
Almost nobody wants to ban all guns. That isn't the only kind of 'gun control law'.
"NRA isn't insane enough to demand the right to bear nuclear weapons"
Don't be so sure. The plain language of the 2nd amendment gives every single person the inviolable right to bear any arm in all situations no matter what. It absolutely, positively gives every person the right to take bombs into court houses, elementary schools, airplanes, neighbor's houses, or the halls of Congress. Here, read it for yourself:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It's pretty clear isn't it? If I can't take grenades onto the commuter airplane, then I have been restrained from bearing arms. My rights have been infringed.
That, of course, is totally preposterous, similar to other preposterous arguments that come from the NRA.
Sheesh. If a teacher is unable to cope with the stress of teaching it seems like the easy way out is to not be a teacher. Killing himself or his students seems like the really, really difficult way out.
How the motherfuck was that moderated as off topic? It is exactly on topic! The interplay between the right to bear arms and the mis-use of that right is exactly the conversation we should and do have whenever these mass murders take place.
Oh, okay, well the MS products I'm exposed to are the developer tools. The developer tools are famously short-lived and inconsistent. You probably meant stuff like Hotmail and Word.
It's a good idea. I've previously thought that all civil fines should be like that, including "punitive damages" in civil cases. If a court wants to punish a party with punitive damages then that makes perfect sense, but it doesn't make sense to assign those damages to the plaintiff who already received remuneration in proportion to his loss.
Also, no need to require people to have a clean record. Just distribute the funds amongst everybody. That way a person who commits an average number of violations gets his money back, which to me has a sense of justice to it. If you are behaving just like everyone else, then you shouldn't be punished.
Nobody has a problem with that, so long as you aren't the guy who says "The speed limit is 65, and I'm doing 65, so I can camp out in the fast lane. Fuck anyone who wants to go 66, I'm moral and good, they are immoral and bad."
Those people are jackasses. There are two laws in that situation: the speed limit, and the law that slower traffic keeps to the right. If you (the general 'you') are obstructing traffic by refusing to keep to the right then you are breaking the law just like the speeder is. The difference is that you are a doucebag and the speeder isn't.
You might have me mixed up with someone else. What you said appears to be what I said:
1. Tax income not profits. This would be a change from today where, as you say, only profits are taxed. (To be honest, this is more of a rhetorical point than a realistic policy proposal.)
2. Increase taxes on unearned income to above the rates of earned income. (Which is to say, assign new rates for both kinds of income such that earned income is incentivized.)
THE COUNTRY DOESN'T DO WHATEVER I WANT THEREFORE I COMPLETELY DISMISS IT!
Get real, man. We vote, the votes are counted (usually, excepting Florida in 2000), and the winners rule the republic. Pointing out the imperfections of how the democracy is administered doesn't make it not a democracy. You sound like a child. Grow up.
Yes, that is true, during the modern political era. Remember, however, that the Republicans for most of their history were the party of flaming progressive liberals such as Abe Lincoln. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans say they are the "party of Lincoln".
I think we should tax corporations like we tax all other "people": tax INCOME, not PROFITS, and at the same tax rates. (I don't get to deduct the cost of my rent, why does a corporation?)
Then, make sure to tax UNEARNED INCOME (dividends, capital gains, investment income) at a minimum of double the rate of EARNED income. As much as we need to "incentivize investment", we doubly so need to "incentivize working".
Slashdot Mirror
"It seems like you should be able to protest as long as you stay a reasonable distance away and aren't harassing people directly."
I just educated myself and I have to reverse what I said. I thought this happened
1. WBC are assholes who protest funerals
2. A law was passed to make them stand a certain distance away
3. That law was struck down on free-speech grounds
But that is wrong. Here is what actually happened:
1. WBC are assholes who protest funerals
2. Many laws were passed to make them stand a certain distance away (also with time constraints)
3. That scenario played out at a funeral; the law was obeyed
4. Later, the grieving father saw some vitriol on the internet and sued WBC for infliction of emotional harm
5. Several rulings later, the Supreme Court found that the speech was protected
So I was wrong. Those laws have not been struck down so far as I can tell. WBC posted their vitriol on the internet and that was found to be protected. I agree with that. The internet is one of many appropriate places for that kind of disgusting nonsense.
It seems to me that we agree on most things except that I think it is important to note that burning crosses is more than just trespass, it is making threats and carries additional meaning morally and legally. You didn't specifically school me but your response caused me to school myself, so I thank you for that. Even more than I want to win an argument, I want to be right, and I think now I'm right and so are you.
Another good question would be "can you use a noun without verbing it?"
Calling it "among the most commonly prosecuted felonies" is cute, but your own cite shows that loitering prosecutions account for one percent of all the prosecutions on that list.
It's only a can of words to shallow thinkers. Moral relativism is abundantly self-evident to anyone who applies even a small amount of critical thought.
Most people agree on most moral issues because most people share the same kind of moral brain. That doesn't lessen the obviousness of the relativism. Also, moral relativism does not in any way invalidate the providence of moral determinations. Society is still justified in getting together and deciding what behaviors are punishable.
Oh, okay. Use whatever meaning you like just so long as you don't try to wriggle out of the question by waving your hands around and calling things ambiguous. What legal theory is that? I'm looking for a legal theory that says certain private activities are inviolable, whereas others are subordinate to other people's offensive speech. So, for instance, WBC can't go into a public park and protest your company picnic where you paid the fee to rent the picnic tables in the park, but they can go into a public cemetery to protest your dead daughter's funeral where you paid the fee to have your funeral.
I almost always agree with the Supreme Court but I think they completely miffed that case, where they said WBC was protected when ruining soldiers' funerals. The law was narrowly tailored and did not prevent WBC from disseminating their message to widespread audiences. There are all sorts of proceedings that we don't allow WBC to ruin and I don't understand why a private funeral can't be one of them.
Burning a cross on a black man's lawn, by the way, *IS* speech (in addition to trespassing), it just isn't protected speech. Likewise, in my opinion, at funerals.
You asked if there is a way to prohibit peaceful assemblies of people on public property who just happen to have a different message than some other neighboring event, without also condoning crap like "free speech zones". Yes. You would do exactly that. You would prohibit the thing you want to prohibit, without resorting to things like free speech zones. This isn't hard stuff. If you want to do A and not B, then you do A and not B. If you want to prohibit picketing within a thousand feet of a funeral without condoning free speech zones, then you prohibit picketing within a thousand feet of a funeral without condoning free speech zones. Why is this difficult? They are different, you want one and not the other, so you do one and not the other. You do what we do with every single law in existence, which is to disallow one behavior while distinguishing it from neighboring behaviors.
You got modded up by people with similarly shallow thinking, the kind of people who think every single little law is a concession to inevitable tyranny.
"The best thing to do with a troll is not to feed it."
Are you sure? Maybe we should at least consider the options.
"is there any way we can prohibit peaceful assemblies of people on public property who just happen to have a different message than some other neighboring event, without also condoning crap like "free speech zones"?"
Oh, thank you for asking, the answer is YES. Now that you know, please stop pretending the answer is no, it would really help advance the discussion.
Yeah wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to legislate such things? Alas, the existence of folks like Westboro.
Jeez, if we lived in a world full of mature, rational adults then all sorts of libertarian ideas would start to make sense. Alas, alas.
So what is the legal theory that says you can ruin someone's private funeral?
"All speech is free speech."
No its not. Of course it's not. Why would you say something so obviously wrong?
Of course that is true. In America we want to balance public safety with public freedom. It's a very hard balance. In my opinion we are currently out of balance toward too many of the wrong kind of gun, whereas European countries (for instance) are out of balance toward too few guns.
Criminals buy guns from non-criminals. Gun-shop owners abide by laws. If you don't allow the sale of 50-round clips then jackasses like this murderer won't have access to 50-round clips.
I suspect that was already clear to you but you chose to ignore it.
Almost nobody wants to ban all guns. That isn't the only kind of 'gun control law'.
"NRA isn't insane enough to demand the right to bear nuclear weapons"
Don't be so sure. The plain language of the 2nd amendment gives every single person the inviolable right to bear any arm in all situations no matter what. It absolutely, positively gives every person the right to take bombs into court houses, elementary schools, airplanes, neighbor's houses, or the halls of Congress. Here, read it for yourself:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It's pretty clear isn't it? If I can't take grenades onto the commuter airplane, then I have been restrained from bearing arms. My rights have been infringed.
That, of course, is totally preposterous, similar to other preposterous arguments that come from the NRA.
Sheesh. If a teacher is unable to cope with the stress of teaching it seems like the easy way out is to not be a teacher. Killing himself or his students seems like the really, really difficult way out.
How the motherfuck was that moderated as off topic? It is exactly on topic! The interplay between the right to bear arms and the mis-use of that right is exactly the conversation we should and do have whenever these mass murders take place.
Microsoft's products are famously inconsistent.
Oh, okay, well the MS products I'm exposed to are the developer tools. The developer tools are famously short-lived and inconsistent. You probably meant stuff like Hotmail and Word.
It's a good idea. I've previously thought that all civil fines should be like that, including "punitive damages" in civil cases. If a court wants to punish a party with punitive damages then that makes perfect sense, but it doesn't make sense to assign those damages to the plaintiff who already received remuneration in proportion to his loss.
Also, no need to require people to have a clean record. Just distribute the funds amongst everybody. That way a person who commits an average number of violations gets his money back, which to me has a sense of justice to it. If you are behaving just like everyone else, then you shouldn't be punished.
Good point, but on the other hand he was traveling through a green light which just appears to be red because of doppler shift.
Nobody has a problem with that, so long as you aren't the guy who says "The speed limit is 65, and I'm doing 65, so I can camp out in the fast lane. Fuck anyone who wants to go 66, I'm moral and good, they are immoral and bad."
Those people are jackasses. There are two laws in that situation: the speed limit, and the law that slower traffic keeps to the right. If you (the general 'you') are obstructing traffic by refusing to keep to the right then you are breaking the law just like the speeder is. The difference is that you are a doucebag and the speeder isn't.
You might have me mixed up with someone else. What you said appears to be what I said:
1. Tax income not profits. This would be a change from today where, as you say, only profits are taxed. (To be honest, this is more of a rhetorical point than a realistic policy proposal.)
2. Increase taxes on unearned income to above the rates of earned income. (Which is to say, assign new rates for both kinds of income such that earned income is incentivized.)
I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here.
Yawn.
THE COUNTRY DOESN'T DO WHATEVER I WANT THEREFORE I COMPLETELY DISMISS IT!
Get real, man. We vote, the votes are counted (usually, excepting Florida in 2000), and the winners rule the republic. Pointing out the imperfections of how the democracy is administered doesn't make it not a democracy. You sound like a child. Grow up.
"The GOP is the party of unbridled greed."
Not true at all! The greed of the Republican party is bridled upon the poor.
Yes, that is true, during the modern political era. Remember, however, that the Republicans for most of their history were the party of flaming progressive liberals such as Abe Lincoln. That's why it's hilarious when Republicans say they are the "party of Lincoln".
I think we should tax corporations like we tax all other "people": tax INCOME, not PROFITS, and at the same tax rates. (I don't get to deduct the cost of my rent, why does a corporation?)
Then, make sure to tax UNEARNED INCOME (dividends, capital gains, investment income) at a minimum of double the rate of EARNED income. As much as we need to "incentivize investment", we doubly so need to "incentivize working".