OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Chris Craig said:
Then go out and exercise your rights. When you get Covid-19 don't be surprised.
Click to expand...

But see that's the thing about freedom bro. You cant deny it for any reason or there is never a clear line drawn.

People are free to be stupid (If people don't wake up though, this could be our downfall), but you cant take that away or whats next? Where do you draw the line on putting a halt to stupid behavior? What you and I see as stupid behavior, they may see as a risk worth taking to ensure their rights are intact. rights that those before them gave their lives for them to do so.

Its the same thing with the race card and Dviss and I go round around bout this often. :)


Unfortunately, in order for him to have the freedom to say he hates the KKK, they must be allowed the freedom to say what they want. Agree or disagree, freedoms and liberties must be universal, or it will never work. There will always be a sect who will feel on the outside and not treated fairly, and possibly justifiably so.

The bi product of free speech is hate speech.

the bi product of freedom of the press is porn.

the bi product of the right to bear arms is gun waiving lunatics in the picture being posted in here.

You aren't going to get one without the other.

The alternative is going to a form of dictatorship, which has NEVER worked in history. In fact dictators and monarchys led, in part, to the creation of this country and the freedoms it was founded on.

We are disconnected from how life used to be prior to the creation of this country and the freedom and liberty it has provided its people (there is a race card that could be discussed, obviously, but this is about the original intent)

Its trying times no doubt about it, but we must not forget what has given us the ability to even discuss this over the web. Our freedom and liberty. Try discussing this in N.K. I know their internet is limited, are they even allowed to discuss things online with each other and if they are i bet its heavily monitored.

Freedom of speech is nothing to take lightly and just pull from people at a whim. Freedom of the press isn't either. Why I share my frustrations with Mags. Being a reporter should be like being a teacher. One of the highest honors not to be taken lightly similar to a judge.
 
magnifier661 said:
Hmmm, let’s look at the constitution...
View attachment 30898

Yep, doesn’t look like they can stop that either. “Right to peacefully assemble.”

coke on over brother!
Click to expand...

Wait. Did you just put coke all over your brother? Whichever coke it was, I hope you have a straw either way!

Still sounds a little to kinky for me though...
 
Orion Bailey said:
But see that's the thing about freedom bro. You cant deny it for any reason or there is never a clear line drawn.

People are free to be stupid (If people don't wake up though, this could be our downfall), but you cant take that away or whats next? Where do you draw the line on putting a halt to stupid behavior? What you and I see as stupid behavior, they may see as a risk worth taking to ensure their rights are intact. rights that those before them gave their lives for them to do so.

Its the same thing with the race card and Dviss and I go round around bout this often. :)


Unfortunately, in order for him to have the freedom to say he hates the KKK, they must be allowed the freedom to say what they want. Agree or disagree, freedoms and liberties must be universal, or it will never work. There will always be a sect who will feel on the outside and not treated fairly, and possibly justifiably so.

The bi product of free speech is hate speech.

the bi product of freedom of the press is porn.

the bi product of the right to bear arms is gun waiving lunatics in the picture being posted in here.

You aren't going to get one without the other.

The alternative is going to a form of dictatorship, which has NEVER worked in history. In fact dictators and monarchys led, in part, to the creation of this country and the freedoms it was founded on.

We are disconnected from how life used to be prior to the creation of this country and the freedom and liberty it has provided its people (there is a race card that could be discussed, obviously, but this is about the original intent)

Its trying times no doubt about it, but we must not forget what has given us the ability to even discuss this over the web. Our freedom and liberty. Try discussing this in N.K. I know their internet is limited, are they even allowed to discuss things online with each other and if they are i bet its heavily monitored.

Freedom of speech is nothing to take lightly and just pull from people at a whim. Freedom of the press isn't either. Why I share my frustrations with Mags. Being a reporter should be like being a teacher. One of the highest honors not to be taken lightly similar to a judge.
Click to expand...

Well said bro.

I don't disagree, not one bit. Our constitutional rights can't and must not be denied. Not only must we not forget all the lives lost to get here, we also have the duty to practice our rights responsibly. I know people are free to be stupid, it's just annoying.
 
Chris Craig said:
Well said bro.

I don't disagree, not one bit. Our constitutional rights can't and must not be denied. Not only must we not forget all the lives lost to get here, we also have the duty to practice our rights responsibly. I know people are free to be stupid, it's just annoying.
Click to expand...
100%
 
Orion Bailey said:
But see that's the thing about freedom bro. You cant deny it for any reason or there is never a clear line drawn.

People are free to be stupid (If people don't wake up though, this could be our downfall), but you cant take that away or whats next? Where do you draw the line on putting a halt to stupid behavior? What you and I see as stupid behavior, they may see as a risk worth taking to ensure their rights are intact. rights that those before them gave their lives for them to do so.

Its the same thing with the race card and Dviss and I go round around bout this often. :)


Unfortunately, in order for him to have the freedom to say he hates the KKK, they must be allowed the freedom to say what they want. Agree or disagree, freedoms and liberties must be universal, or it will never work. There will always be a sect who will feel on the outside and not treated fairly, and possibly justifiably so.

The bi product of free speech is hate speech.

the bi product of freedom of the press is porn.

the bi product of the right to bear arms is gun waiving lunatics in the picture being posted in here.

You aren't going to get one without the other.

The alternative is going to a form of dictatorship, which has NEVER worked in history. In fact dictators and monarchys led, in part, to the creation of this country and the freedoms it was founded on.

We are disconnected from how life used to be prior to the creation of this country and the freedom and liberty it has provided its people (there is a race card that could be discussed, obviously, but this is about the original intent)

Its trying times no doubt about it, but we must not forget what has given us the ability to even discuss this over the web. Our freedom and liberty. Try discussing this in N.K. I know their internet is limited, are they even allowed to discuss things online with each other and if they are i bet its heavily monitored.

Freedom of speech is nothing to take lightly and just pull from people at a whim. Freedom of the press isn't either. Why I share my frustrations with Mags. Being a reporter should be like being a teacher. One of the highest honors not to be taken lightly similar to a judge.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t of said it any better.
 
magnifier661 said:
That was the main reason for the revolution.

It’s also why our nation is so unique. Three separate branches of government and a bill of rights. No law should pass that infringes on those rights.
Click to expand...

I long for the days when the three branches had equal power. Trump doesn’t give a shit anymore about those types of things.
 
Anne Frank wasn't a prisoner. She was in hiding. She became a prisoner after she was caught.
 
crandc said:
Anne Frank wasn't a prisoner. She was in hiding. She became a prisoner after she was caught.
Click to expand...
prisoner
[ˈpriz(ə)nər]
NOUN
prisoners (plural noun)
  1. a person legally held in prison as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial.
    "a prisoner serving a life sentence"
    synonyms:
    convict · inmate · trusty · jailbird · con · lifer · (old) lag · yardbird · transport
    • a person captured and kept confined by an enemy, opponent, or criminal.
      "200 rebels were taken prisoner" · 
      prisoner of war · POW · hostage · captive · detainee · internee
    • a person who is or feels confined or trapped by a situation or set of circumstances.

 
There are no constitutional scholars posting here that's for damn sure.

my guess is if stay at home orders were actually unconstitutional and limiting public gatherings was unconstitutional, there would already be hundreds of civil suits filed. I haven't heard of any but maybe I have missed the news

funny how self-righteous "conservatives" get about people possibly losing a right to go to church or pack around an assault weapon, but are just fine with millions of minorities and democratic voters being dis-enfranchised from their right to vote. Funny how much they love a couple of amendments while being willing to ignore many others
 
magnifier661 said:
The amendment is free exercise thereof. Meaning, cannot limit whatsoever.View attachment 30897
Click to expand...

The first amendment has never been completely unrestricted. The famous example is that you don't have the protected right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded area when there is no fire. You don't have freedom of speech to make threats. In general, your rights end when they abridge other people's rights or the safety of the community. So when there's a pandemic that spreads in the community when people gather, the first amendment isn't being violated when gatherings (for religious reasons or any other) are banned.
 
Orion Bailey said:
@wizenheimer We forget something we posted just the other day? You can do better man.....
Click to expand...

I didn't forget it at all

I didn't say I was going to turn off my powers of observation or not comment on stuff I see. And please tell me what was so 'low-blow' about what I said. Again, there are no constitutional scholars posting here that I see...that includes me. Where are all the lawsuits challenging stay at home orders if they were such a blatant violation of the 1st amendment?

and being cynical, one of the observations I'll make is I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread gets filled with a sudden concern about the 1st amendment shortly after trump starts calling for liberating states from stay at home orders.
 
wizenheimer said:
I didn't forget it at all

I didn't say I was going to turn off my powers of observation or not comment on stuff I see. And please tell me what was so 'low-blow' about what I said. Again, there are no constitutional scholars posting here that I see...that includes me. Where are all the lawsuits challenging stay at home orders if they were such a blatant violation of the 1st amendment?

and being cynical, one of the observations I'll make is I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread gets filled with a sudden concern about the 1st amendment shortly after trump starts calling for liberating states from stay at home orders.
Click to expand...

Not low blow, but didn't you call bullshit on me for using the word libs? I think those were your exact words? "I call bullshit?" I could be mixing your posts up., but I know you came at me.
Im just saying you went off on me and yet here you are with generalization with a broad brush..."conservatives..."

If you are going to walk the line of that is bad, then why are you doing it yourself? So when I say be better, I mean we could be steadier. Here you are doing the very thing you scolded me for the other day.

wizenheimer said:
I have a suspicion: I think this sudden concern about the 1st amendment by 'conservative' posters over the last 3 pages of this thread is mostly bullshit. They are taking their cues from the orange moron, want to give him cover, and that's the motivation, not any real fear that the Constitution is actually being violated. In other words, it's no coincidence at all that the right wingers here are suddenly yelling about the constitution shortly after trump starts babbling about "liberating" states with stay at home orders
Click to expand...
 
Minstrel said:
The first amendment has never been completely unrestricted. The famous example is that you don't have the protected right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded area when there is no fire. You don't have freedom of speech to make threats. In general, your rights end when they abridge other people's rights or the safety of the community. So when there's a pandemic that spreads in the community when people gather, the first amendment isn't being violated when gatherings (for religious reasons or any other) are banned.
Click to expand...
Don’t agree with the “fire” often used analogy. This is the judge’s statement on that matter:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
 
Orion Bailey said:
Not low blow, but didn't you call bullshit on me for using the word libs? I think those were your exact words? "I call bullshit?" I could be mixing your posts up., but I know you came at me.
Im just saying you went off on me and yet here you are with generalization with a broad brush..."conservatives..."

If you are going to walk the line of that is bad, then why are you doing it yourself? So when I say be better, I mean we could be steadier. Here you are doing the very thing you scolded me for the other day.
Click to expand...

you posted something I decided to delete, and did delete almost immediately...did you notice that?

I also remember saying that I was aiming to be less confrontational...I never said I would always hit that target
 
magnifier661 said:
Don’t agree with the “fire” often used analogy. This is the judge’s statement on that matter:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Click to expand...

I'd think gathering during a pandemic could loosely fall under the "causing panic" under the assumption its causing potential harm to many others.

There's also the technology aspect to consider. I think in new Mexico where a court ruled against a challenge by a church because they were still allowed virtual gatherings. So their 1st amendment rights to gather werent actually denied.
 
RR7 said:
I'd think gathering during a pandemic could loosely fall under the "causing panic" under the assumption its causing potential harm to many others.

There's also the technology aspect to consider. I think in new Mexico where a court ruled against a challenge by a church because they were still allowed virtual gatherings. So their 1st amendment rights to gather werent actually denied.
Click to expand...
That’s actually a reasonable response. I would love to tell someone why this doesn’t violate their rights. I’m gonna steal this. Thanks
 
magnifier661 said:
Don’t agree with the “fire” often used analogy. This is the judge’s statement on that matter:

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Click to expand...

I don't understand your response. You say you "don't agree" with that example and then quote a Supreme Court justice affirming that precise example.
 
RR7 said:
I'd think gathering during a pandemic could loosely fall under the "causing panic" under the assumption its causing potential harm to many others.

There's also the technology aspect to consider. I think in new Mexico where a court ruled against a challenge by a church because they were still allowed virtual gatherings. So their 1st amendment rights to gather werent actually denied.
Click to expand...
I'm not so much worried about the Churches, but I have wondered for a few weeks what the actual powers of the governors and federal governments actually are in regards to shutting down businesses and such. I'm not even close to a legal expert so I have no idea but something seems a bit odd that they can just decide on a whim what businesses are essential and who's being closed down. Who can gather and who can't. I mean look at every political press conference for the last month those have ALL (this is hyperbole) violated their own rules they're giving to us.
I think it will be intriguing if legislation happens and new laws come into play after this all said and done.
 
magnifier661 said:
That’s actually a reasonable response. I would love to tell someone why this doesn’t violate their rights. I’m gonna steal this. Thanks
Click to expand...
It's an odd and interesting thought on it, with where technology is, and how it all can be defined. I reached out to a couple of friends, 1 attorney, 1 judge, to get their input. Framers didnt know what we would have in the 21st century. In the way of guns, thinking of 2nd amendment, and tech, thinking of 1st. And I'm sure it's a challenge for judges to rule on antiquated laws, when SO much has changed in our lives.
 
RR7 said:
There's also the technology aspect to consider. I think in new Mexico where a court ruled against a challenge by a church because they were still allowed virtual gatherings. So their 1st amendment rights to gather werent actually denied.
Click to expand...

that's interesting in several ways

one is would this ruling have gone the other way 20 years ago when there wasn't the technology to allow virtual assembly. Has the internet changed the Constitution?
 
wizenheimer said:
one is would this ruling have gone the other way 20 years ago when there wasn't the technology to allow virtual assembly. Has the internet changed the Constitution?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it would necessarily have been disallowed (though, we can never know for certain what a court of humans would have decided) even 50 years ago. Again, none of those enumerated rights are completely unrestricted--when utilizing those rights would endanger others, the rights lose their force of law.

But even if it would have been disallowed by courts 20 years ago, that doesn't mean technology has "changed" the Constitution. It just means there are more avenues to worship, so closing down physical churches doesn't abridge the ability to worship.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't understand your response. You say you "don't agree" with that example and then quote a Supreme Court justice affirming that precise example.
Click to expand...
Because the often used analogy isn’t about causing a health risk but panic to the public. I’m following the stay home orders, just making sure civil liberties aren’t being infringed
 
magnifier661 said:
Because the often used analogy isn’t about causing a health risk but panic to the public. I’m following the stay home orders, just making sure civil liberties aren’t being infringed
Click to expand...

He wasn't saying that causing a panic is literally the only reason the first amendment can be abridged. He was providing an example of how harm to others isn't protected. Another example is that you can't threaten other people as "protected speech." If you threaten the President's life and you're arrested by the FBI, you can't claim your first amendment rights are being violated. It seems pretty obvious to me that during a pandemic that spreads by people gathering, rights to gather are no longer protected by the Constitution. I really don't see any court, especially the Supreme Court, disallowing the shelter-in-place orders or the bans on gatherings, including in religious institutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top