If we really extend things to illogical conclusions, then by your viewpoint things like child pornography should be legal as free speech. Oh, and as part of the same amendment, it should be legal for people to kidnap and kill other people for human sacrifices if their religion requires it as part of free religion.
No, it wouldn't. Because there's a superseding guarantee of life and liberty. Regardless of the speech aspect, child pornography would violate exploitation protections while murder is clearly covered by "life." On the other hand, there is no Constitutional guarantee protecting TV viewers from being protected from harsh consonant sounds that might imply bodily functions that everybody has; neither is there a Constitutional guarantee or any period analog promising TV access as a fundamental human right.
If we really extend things to illogical conclusions, then by your viewpoint things like child pornography should be legal as free speech. Oh, and as part of the same amendment, it should be legal for people to kidnap and kill other people for human sacrifices if their religion requires it as part of free religion.
No, it wouldn't. Because there's a superseding guarantee of life and liberty. Regardless of the speech aspect, child pornography would violate exploitation protections while murder is clearly covered by "life." On the other hand, there is no Constitutional guarantee protecting TV viewers from being protected from harsh consonant sounds that might imply bodily functions that everybody has; neither is there a Constitutional guarantee or any period analog promising TV access as a fundamental human right.
Ah, but then we go back to the restrictions on "threats" -- a credible threat could also be viewed as violating the guarantee of "life." Same thing for falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, thereby causing a dangerous and possibly deadly panic, or speech inciting people into violent rioting. Hate speech is a different case, but given how much hate speech is spread via vandalism and such, those statutes penalize hate speech adequately IMHO.
Also, there is no guarantee to "life" in the actual Constitution -- only in the Declaration of Independence. For that matter, there is no guarantee against exploitation in the Constitution either, so the idea of banning child pornography as being covered by the guarantee against exploitation is moot.
Finally, I never said that there was a Constitutional guarantee of access to TV -- just that I disagree that the era of OTA TV was over -- especially since OTA TV and radio will probably be necessary until another free-to-use technology becomes available as the only viable means to broadcast information on emergencies to the general public.
That said, if the laws banishing foul language and boobies from OTA TV were abolished, I'd have no problem with it.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is it your contention that because the Constitution does not expressly list the illegality of murder, that there is no recognized natural right to life?
Just no legally codified right to life. That said, the Constitution does allow the governments to pass laws that don't violate its terms as they see fit, and banning murder doesn't violate the Constitution at all, except in the case where murder is required as part of a religious practice, in which case murder bans violate freedom of religion.
All kidding aside, I'm just taking your claims on freedom of speech to the highest, illogical conclusions here. The fact is the courts have stated that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not completely absolute and that it is okay to restrict them under certain, very limited situations. The 9th Amendment itself says that just because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that people still don't have that right, such as the right to life you mentioned. While in effect I do agree with you that obscenity and hate speech laws do violate the 1st Amendment (despite what the courts have said), I disagree with you that laws concerning threats and such do not. I just was trying to illustrate what the ultimate leap would be if one to were take an extreme, absolute interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
Look, despite what you might think, I'm not a strict constructionist. But when the highest law in the land says "you can't do X" in absolute terms, doing anything else needs to prompt a 3/4 majority amendment.
There is a world of difference between loose construction and completely ignoring construction whenever it's most convenient. Courts are terrific for making judgement calls in grey areas, specific circumstantial cases, and emerging fields (like tech), but how can we defend ourselves from tyranny if no doesn't mean no anymore?
I actually agree with some of your points -- e.g. slander and such. But to insist that the (for all intents and purposes) aristocracy can ignore the law it's agreed to uphold is just atrocious. Amend.
I didn't mean to come across as someone arguing that aristocracy can ignore the law it's agreed to uphold myself. I guess we both looked like we had extreme views on the opposite ends of the spectrum, when in effect, our views may not be that far off if not at all. I'm all for speech being as free as possible with reasonable limits such as slander and libel, speech meant to instigate riots and panics that may result in injury or death, and so on. Seems like you're pretty much in the same boat when we get down to it.
As I said, I'm not a fan of the obscenity bans, albeit the Miller test that's used to define obscenity results in not a heck of a lot being declared obscene due to it being so hard to meet all its requirements. However, apparently broadcast TV is held to a stricter standard than the Miller test and I agree with you that that's not quite fair either. I'm all for voluntary censorship by networks much like what's done on unregulated cable -- i.e. don't show anything that may offend parents with small kiddies before 10 PM or whatever just because you think it's a good thing to do and not because the government says you have to do it.
I literally cannot think of tortures vile enough to serve as recompense for these wastes of matter. There is nothing that could be done to punish them as they deserve. Holy shit.
This was a strange case to base this decision on. While I agree with the ruling I don't feel this case asked the question that the justices answered.
Yes it did. The ADA has an exception for religious employees of churches because the government can not force churches to keep ministers that they don't want, regardless of the circumstances. The woman in question had religious leadership duties as part of her job. Therefore, she fell under the exception to the ADA and does not have a cause of action under that law. This case addressed ONLY the ministerial exception codified in the ADA, and no other cause of action for wrongful termination.
The SC also specifically said the decision is to be narrowly applied, and declined to issue a broad rule of applicability because they didn't want this to become a huge loophole for discrimination.
Hostess Brands Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Wednesday to confront burdensome debt and labor costs that the Twinkies and Wonder Bread baker says have left it fighting to compete. (Via Ro)
This was a strange case to base this decision on. While I agree with the ruling I don't feel this case asked the question that the justices answered.
Yes it did. The ADA has an exception for religious employees of churches because the government can not force churches to keep ministers that they don't want, regardless of the circumstances. The woman in question had religious leadership duties as part of her job. Therefore, she fell under the exception to the ADA and does not have a cause of action under that law. This case addressed ONLY the ministerial exception codified in the ADA, and no other cause of action for wrongful termination.
The SC also specifically said the decision is to be narrowly applied, and declined to issue a broad rule of applicability because they didn't want this to become a huge loophole for discrimination.
That's what I get for skimming headlines and trusting the news media to accurately inform me about SCOTUS cases.
I literally cannot think of tortures vile enough to serve as recompense for these wastes of matter. There is nothing that could be done to punish them as they deserve. Holy shit.
Vlad the Impaler wasn't such a bad guy, and he had some creative ideas for punishment.
Vlad the Impaler wasn't such a bad guy, and he had some creative ideas for punishment.
He was like rule 34: sure, it's some of the most despicable disgusting shit you can imagine and then some, we as humans can think of and create such terrible monstrosities. It's nice to know that we are very good at something, even if that thing is being bad.
I literally cannot think of tortures vile enough to serve as recompense for these wastes of matter. There is nothing that could be done to punish them as they deserve. Holy shit.
Vlad the Impaler wasn't such a bad guy, and he had some creative ideas for punishment.
It wouldn't be enough. Not even scaphism or slow slicing is awful enough for these monsters. Consider: you're talking about men who murdered a little girl by setting her on fire. As if that's not bad enough, she was innocent in the manner of any eight-year old and trust them implicitly. And then, as if things couldn't get any worse, she's from an uncontacted Amazon tribe, a group of the most innocent human beings on earth. These are people who don't know how to work metal, and some of them can't perform mathematics because their language doesn't have words for groups of greater than three. The most dangerous thing she'd likely ever seen is a piece of knapped flint.
I can't imagine a more base and foul crime. I know I shouldn't wish ill on people, but the revulsion I feel is immense.
At first I was worried they were putting it too close to the coast but after looking up the location, which does not seem to be in any of the articles, it should be fine. Neat piece of news.
It's actually chinese twitter rumors being translated and reported by Gawker. It's a whole new formerly unheard of level of unreliable source. Thought it was interesting either way
Reuters is dubious and is sharing the thoughts of like-minded Tweeters: “Wait for confirmation on Kim Jong Un death rumors. Twitter is also reporting that ‘Jonas Brothers are the best band,’” Matt Binder wrote.
Comments
Also, there is no guarantee to "life" in the actual Constitution -- only in the Declaration of Independence. For that matter, there is no guarantee against exploitation in the Constitution either, so the idea of banning child pornography as being covered by the guarantee against exploitation is moot.
Finally, I never said that there was a Constitutional guarantee of access to TV -- just that I disagree that the era of OTA TV was over -- especially since OTA TV and radio will probably be necessary until another free-to-use technology becomes available as the only viable means to broadcast information on emergencies to the general public.
That said, if the laws banishing foul language and boobies from OTA TV were abolished, I'd have no problem with it.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All kidding aside, I'm just taking your claims on freedom of speech to the highest, illogical conclusions here. The fact is the courts have stated that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not completely absolute and that it is okay to restrict them under certain, very limited situations. The 9th Amendment itself says that just because a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution doesn't mean that people still don't have that right, such as the right to life you mentioned. While in effect I do agree with you that obscenity and hate speech laws do violate the 1st Amendment (despite what the courts have said), I disagree with you that laws concerning threats and such do not. I just was trying to illustrate what the ultimate leap would be if one to were take an extreme, absolute interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
There is a world of difference between loose construction and completely ignoring construction whenever it's most convenient. Courts are terrific for making judgement calls in grey areas, specific circumstantial cases, and emerging fields (like tech), but how can we defend ourselves from tyranny if no doesn't mean no anymore?
I actually agree with some of your points -- e.g. slander and such. But to insist that the (for all intents and purposes) aristocracy can ignore the law it's agreed to uphold is just atrocious. Amend.
As I said, I'm not a fan of the obscenity bans, albeit the Miller test that's used to define obscenity results in not a heck of a lot being declared obscene due to it being so hard to meet all its requirements. However, apparently broadcast TV is held to a stricter standard than the Miller test and I agree with you that that's not quite fair either. I'm all for voluntary censorship by networks much like what's done on unregulated cable -- i.e. don't show anything that may offend parents with small kiddies before 10 PM or whatever just because you think it's a good thing to do and not because the government says you have to do it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?_r=1
1. Make money.
2. Exploit workers.
3. Discriminate based on race, disability, and infirmity.
I literally cannot think of tortures vile enough to serve as recompense for these wastes of matter. There is nothing that could be done to punish them as they deserve. Holy shit.
The SC also specifically said the decision is to be narrowly applied, and declined to issue a broad rule of applicability because they didn't want this to become a huge loophole for discrimination.
I can't imagine a more base and foul crime. I know I shouldn't wish ill on people, but the revulsion I feel is immense.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/02/09/us-approves-southerns-vogtle-nuclear-reactors/