If unpopular expression isn't protected, then there's no point whatsoever to even having a first amendment. Why do you hate the bill of rights?
You do realize this is the regime that is trying to enact the "fairness doctrine" the reigime who has a czar that felt Hugo Chavez's crushing and closing down of all media that was politically dissenting was an admirable thing.That now wants to silence any political dissent in America for it's failing Obamacare bill,
and your concern is for an obscure, low grade porno film.
So are people who get food stamps or WIC able to voice their dissent to our govt? The govt. When does this slippery slope stop?It is not right for the president and senators to tell a private co. that they cannot tell factual statements about their company. "Business of America is business" Pres. C. Cooledge
Did they sign anything to that effect?Probably when companies don't sign agreements.The govt. When does this slippery slope stop?If they signed away that right to get government money, perhaps -- maybe you should find out if that is the case.It is not right for the president and senators to tell a private co. that they cannot tell factual statements about their company.
I hear what your syaing but...nothing has been proven "factual" regarding this bill.
As I stated before...they could warn of the "possibility"...but can't state it as "fact". Nor can the government state it as "fact" regarding the other side.
The amount hasn't become a fact until it happens. However everybody without a personal stake in this, like CBO Director, says they will lose benefits.
To me it still comes down to the govt. meddling too much. There is a clear clash of interests. The govt. (not working for a profit) is disallowing a private company from marketing to increase their profit, or lessen their loss. So the govt. wants to compete with a private business but then won't let them try and sell their product.
I have repeatedly stated on here I don't support shutting up the idiots you worship like Limbaugh. And yes, locking up a guy for making porn with consenting adults and selling it to adults is a huge injustice, and a textbook case of conservatives with agendas wiping their asses with the bill of rights.
Yes that's a HUGE INJUSTICE. free political dissent is sort of an aside.Well we all have different priorities.
I doubt the bill of rights was made with porn in mind. Pros ution has nothing to do with Amendment 1.
- First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to pe ion,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
Really? You don't think porn is a form of free speech? I'm pretty sure it involves expression.
Also, the 9th Amendment states that rights not specifically listed in the Cons ution are still protected.
Also, America's system of justice goes by common law, not civil law, and in most cases, porn is considered free speech.
Your idea of what the 1st Amendment protects is extremely limited and faulty to boot.
You sound just like one of the idiots who tries to argue that the second amendment only allows establishment of a militia. Unpopular speech and expression is EXACTLY what the people who wrote the bill of rights had in mind.
Porn is not speech protected by the Cons ution. That is a fact. Watching porn in your own house is protected.
The only thing you know of my interpretation of the 1st Amendment protections is that I don't think it protects sex for profit from government. That is not enough for you to say I have an "extremely limited and faulty" view.
You just sound like an idiot.
For those who are interested:
http://volokh.com/posts/1253725442.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1253577624.shtml
Please explain why porn is not protected by freedom of speech then. I'm willing to hear the argument if you're willing to produce it.
So Obama has broken the law and went against the cons ution. Let's see how many newspapers this gets to. If any at all - probably page 20 in the lifestyle section next to the sudoku.
You sound like a false conservative. Why do you hate freedom of speech? Go move to China.
Actually that is something you should try and explain to me. All I am talking about is precedent. The cons ution does not protect "obscene" speech (obscene is defined by the courts) In almost every case porn is considered obscene. I can't define obscene for the legal definition. It's not an argument. It's not protected. In 69, I think, the supreme ct ruled it was a right to be able to watch porn in your own house. I found this debate about a state college trying to show a porn to a public audience. They had two elected officials debate and it is pretty insightful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601746.html
So you didn't read the articles.
Chump, Did you?The Humana Controversy and Government Funding:
"-So if the government simply directed Humana not to use federally-provided funds for its political advocacy to recipients, that would be permissible. It's possible that if Humana used a federally-provided mailing list for its mailing (I don't know whether that's true), the government could attach similar restrictions on the use of the mailing list. But the government went further: It instructed Humana even to take the advocacy off its Web site, without regard to whether Humana used government-provided money for such advocacy. That, it seems to me, is uncons utional under FCC v. League of Women Voters."
"-But the Court considered that argument in League of Women Voters and rejected it. And when the government (federal, state, and local) controls 25-30% of the GNP, and provides valuable range of contracts and subsidies to a vast range of ins utions, including private universities, think tanks, newspapers, and so on, giving the government a free hand to restrict recipients' speech as a condition of its contracts would give the government vast power over public debate."
Last edited by spursncowboys; 09-23-2009 at 06:45 PM. Reason: forgot quotation marks
So did Obama do something uncons utional? Did he break the law?
I'd say it's probably a matter for the court to further decide.
And it probably will.
Where does it say Obama ordered the gag?
Though it might just have cause as being uncons utional...nothing points to Obama being the one who personally ordered it.
Of course... if heads might fly on this...the road to order just might lead to...
You guys are acting like he would go to prison over this.
Just like Rumsfeld went to prison after he lost Hamdan, right?
It certainly could be uncons utional, but c'mon....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote