But Powell worried about other instances where property owners might be compelled to let others express opinions the owner did not share. "I do not interpret our decision today as a blanket approval for state efforts to transform privately owned commercial property into public forums. Any such state action would raise substantial federal constitutional questions not present in this case."
There is a difference between handing out pamphlets and collecting signatures in a courtyard as opposed to at the entrance of a specific shop.
You were in school full-time. This usually means the government was giving you money to get educated or at least loaning it to you interest free. You probably could have made more money waiting tables at a sit-down restaurant then working as a security guard in campus. Nobody take those people seriously anyways. In fact my school didn't even have guards. Just campus police who responded only to actual emergencies.
Actually I'm pretty sure there are laws against doing actual harm to a business by putting things on their property. I for one won't go into a grocery store that constantly has people trying to force me to sign shit. That's why I'm glad the crackdown on such stupidity is in full force. Try to set up a table today, I'm sure it'll get thrown in the trash.
Uhm, here is an idea. Don't dress your daughter in a skirt when she is going on a slide and its gonna fly up unless you want people looking up her skirt. Geez. Some people and their application of blame anywhere but themselves.
Actually while it may be polite to ask if you can take someones picture in public it certainly is not wrong if you take the photo and do not ask. Why? Well what is the difference between me seeing your children with my own two eyes and taking a photo of them? The photo lasts longer? Other then that nothing changes. So if you children are dressed inappropriately to be in public then that's your fault, not the photographers.
My point was he was taking a moral position (or it seamed so) against people who are attracted to women who happen to be below the age of consent. The question I posed has to do with why those laws exist in the form they do and where such an idea came from.
If all the movies were available online I would do that too. But they are not and also Xbox isn't streaming them to my TV yet which is another downside. So I mostly wait for a physical DVD to show up. I'm not fat either. I just ran a 5k and I'm going on a mountain bike ride this weekend.
I agree with you there. Sometimes Police take matters in their own hands when they should be busy enforcing the actual laws on the books. In addition many police just act above the law when off duty simply because they are police during the day. Really the police should be policed more rigorously then the general public.
Right of course you would have to be on public property. In todays tech that would be like those parabolic listening devices. They just amplify the sound from a specific area. No trespassing needed.
No, the 2nd applies to all of us because if I want to make a militia that consists of me and my Gun I can.
The 1st applies to everyone because as soon as you report on something you ARE a journalist.
The 9th is interesting in so much as it gives people freedom; however freedom can only extend so far. That is where the balance between anarchy and governmental police state comes in. Of course there should be a balance and people should be afforded every right possible. All I'm saying is sometimes rights conflict with each other. Which RIGHT is more important? That I can watch my neighbor or that he has a right that I don't watch him?
Also need I remind you that Democrats also voted for a war in Iraq before they voted against it. Nevermind that we didn't attack the people of Iraq and we never have. We defend them everyday from those who want to grab power instead of participating in elections and having democracy. What you wrote there is tantamount to TREASON. You called the military of the United States of America Murders and you don't even have any clue what you are talking about.
That's moronic. Lobbying is tantamount to bribery. The representatives in congress are supposed to represent the people's wishes. If you don't like what they are doing you vote them out of office. You don't pay them lots of money or send them on lavish trips to foreign countries. Lobbying is bullshit.
Actually this would be great. You know why? Because once and for all there would be a public outcry to abolish the moronic speed laws. Speeding should only get you punished if you are doing something that could immediately lead to an traffic collision or you cause a traffic collision. Then the punishment should be swift and hard. Things that cause traffic collisions include failure to yield the right of way and poor lane discipline. These things should be ticketed; NOT speeding. Speeding is a factor in only 11% of traffic collisions according to statistics quoted on Top Gear. Even in those 11% of traffic collisions another factor was determined to be the main cause like failure to yield or improper lane change or loss of control of the car due to erratic driving.
Hi my name is "analogy that doesn't apply". I would like to go off on a tangent with you that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Ok? Let's go!
What in the world. Anybody can plainly see that spying and surveillance are concepts that existed way before this country was ever founded while the stuff you mentioned is technology and NOT a concept and couldn't be imagined at the time. Your post is totally non-sequitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is very easy to read. If you don't like it you can do as others say and hit ctrl-A.
There is a difference between handing out pamphlets and collecting signatures in a courtyard as opposed to at the entrance of a specific shop.
In addition this paper rips that ruling to shreds. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105604
You were in school full-time. This usually means the government was giving you money to get educated or at least loaning it to you interest free. You probably could have made more money waiting tables at a sit-down restaurant then working as a security guard in campus. Nobody take those people seriously anyways. In fact my school didn't even have guards. Just campus police who responded only to actual emergencies.
You don't have a RIGHT to get a job. So you can just suck it up and pee or not have a job. No rights are lost.
No that's Barack Hussein Obama.
Note: Before you say "Woosh", I know what I'm doing here. Just trust me. Also his name is actually Barry Soetoro.
So quit. Or you didn't have the balls to stand up for what you knew was right?
Actually I'm pretty sure there are laws against doing actual harm to a business by putting things on their property. I for one won't go into a grocery store that constantly has people trying to force me to sign shit. That's why I'm glad the crackdown on such stupidity is in full force. Try to set up a table today, I'm sure it'll get thrown in the trash.
Uhm, here is an idea. Don't dress your daughter in a skirt when she is going on a slide and its gonna fly up unless you want people looking up her skirt. Geez. Some people and their application of blame anywhere but themselves.
Actually while it may be polite to ask if you can take someones picture in public it certainly is not wrong if you take the photo and do not ask. Why? Well what is the difference between me seeing your children with my own two eyes and taking a photo of them? The photo lasts longer? Other then that nothing changes. So if you children are dressed inappropriately to be in public then that's your fault, not the photographers.
My point was he was taking a moral position (or it seamed so) against people who are attracted to women who happen to be below the age of consent. The question I posed has to do with why those laws exist in the form they do and where such an idea came from.
I'm just trying to figure out where you get your moral code because none of the books I've read say anything about an age of consent.
If all the movies were available online I would do that too. But they are not and also Xbox isn't streaming them to my TV yet which is another downside. So I mostly wait for a physical DVD to show up. I'm not fat either. I just ran a 5k and I'm going on a mountain bike ride this weekend.
I agree with you there. Sometimes Police take matters in their own hands when they should be busy enforcing the actual laws on the books. In addition many police just act above the law when off duty simply because they are police during the day. Really the police should be policed more rigorously then the general public.
Right of course you would have to be on public property. In todays tech that would be like those parabolic listening devices. They just amplify the sound from a specific area. No trespassing needed.
*The not rare enough DOUBLE WOOSH*
Yes but simple telescopes and the ability to sit outside a house and listen in did exist. So it's not clear cut.
You don't have to be omniscient to see the trends. You just need a lot of free time to tracks the markets. Like a full time jobs worth of free time.
Implying something which could be written out is not a good way for people to understand what you mean.
No, the 2nd applies to all of us because if I want to make a militia that consists of me and my Gun I can.
The 1st applies to everyone because as soon as you report on something you ARE a journalist.
The 9th is interesting in so much as it gives people freedom; however freedom can only extend so far. That is where the balance between anarchy and governmental police state comes in. Of course there should be a balance and people should be afforded every right possible. All I'm saying is sometimes rights conflict with each other. Which RIGHT is more important? That I can watch my neighbor or that he has a right that I don't watch him?
Also need I remind you that Democrats also voted for a war in Iraq before they voted against it. Nevermind that we didn't attack the people of Iraq and we never have. We defend them everyday from those who want to grab power instead of participating in elections and having democracy. What you wrote there is tantamount to TREASON. You called the military of the United States of America Murders and you don't even have any clue what you are talking about.
That's moronic. Lobbying is tantamount to bribery. The representatives in congress are supposed to represent the people's wishes. If you don't like what they are doing you vote them out of office. You don't pay them lots of money or send them on lavish trips to foreign countries. Lobbying is bullshit.
I'm sure they don't have to enter the car to track the car. Also nothing about secrets is mentioned in the Fourth.
Actually this would be great. You know why? Because once and for all there would be a public outcry to abolish the moronic speed laws. Speeding should only get you punished if you are doing something that could immediately lead to an traffic collision or you cause a traffic collision. Then the punishment should be swift and hard. Things that cause traffic collisions include failure to yield the right of way and poor lane discipline. These things should be ticketed; NOT speeding. Speeding is a factor in only 11% of traffic collisions according to statistics quoted on Top Gear. Even in those 11% of traffic collisions another factor was determined to be the main cause like failure to yield or improper lane change or loss of control of the car due to erratic driving.
Hi my name is "analogy that doesn't apply". I would like to go off on a tangent with you that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Ok? Let's go!
What in the world. Anybody can plainly see that spying and surveillance are concepts that existed way before this country was ever founded while the stuff you mentioned is technology and NOT a concept and couldn't be imagined at the time. Your post is totally non-sequitor.
Yes. And your point is???