Author Topic: WTG to the ACLU (Read 3585 times)

lukster · « **Reply #135 on:** July 27, 2006, 08:13:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
No, I don't believe they have that legal right.

Now, it's your turn to answer the question.

Which question?

lukster · « **Reply #136 on:** July 27, 2006, 08:23:53 PM »

Ok, I think I know what your question is. Here's the answer.

"Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Sandman · « **Reply #137 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:06:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Ok, I think I know what your question is. Here's the answer.

"Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I take it that you think this trumps the 1st?

lukster · « **Reply #138 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:15:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I take it that you think this trumps the 1st?

I think we have to use common sense, something many are apparently sorely lacking, in it's application. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Why is that? You can't incite a riot. Why is that? These folks are doing their best to incite violence imo. Is that lawful? Does a state not have the right to balance some rights against others? I hope the ACLU doesn't chicken out and back down on this. I think they'll get their tulips handed to 'em by the SCOTUS.

Sandman · « **Reply #139 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:27:00 AM »

Common sense rarely seems to apply in court.

While there are limits to free speech, most notably like those you mention where people can be hurt, maimed or killed as a result, the crap that comes out of Phelps' mouth isn't the same thing. IMHO, it's quite within his rights to say mean spiteful things about dead people. They are certainly quite beyond caring.

Certainly, Phelps is an bellybutton for doing so. Certainly, we can all hope that Phelps burns in some fiery hell, but I doubt very much that there is any legal ground from which the ACLU can fight to stop Phelps from exercising his right of free speech no matter how distasteful it may be. IANAL, but I disagree that 9th and 10th Amendments apply.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

lukster · « **Reply #140 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:36:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Common sense rarely seems to apply in court.

While there are limits to free speech, most notably like those you mention where people can be hurt, maimed or killed as a result, the crap that comes out of Phelps' mouth isn't the same thing. IMHO, it's quite within his rights to say mean spiteful things about dead people. They are certainly quite beyond caring.

Certainly, Phelps is an bellybutton for doing so. Certainly, we can all hope that Phelps burns in some fiery hell, but I doubt very much that there is any legal ground from which the ACLU can fight to stop Phelps from exercising his right of free speech no matter how distasteful it may be. IANAL, but I disagree that 9th and 10th Amendments apply.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

No one is trying to stop him from spewing his hate. Missouri has simply limited the time at which he can do so, not in proximity and within an hour of a funeral. They've said they aren't backing down on this.

Where in the constitution do find it acceptable to prevent someone from yelling fire in a crowded theater? Is this one of those common sense restrictions?

lukster · « **Reply #141 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:49:30 AM »

btw, didn't you say that you can't proselytize in public? What do you think these people are doing? They are proselytizing.

Of course I still say you're absolutely wrong about not being able to proselytize in pubic but I'm wondering how you reconcile the two, free speech and proselytizing.

Sandman · « **Reply #142 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:51:18 AM »

It's not in the Constitution. Try Schenck v. United States. and Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Sandman · « **Reply #143 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:55:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
btw, didn't you say that you can't proselytize in public? What do you think these people are doing? They are proselytizing.

Of course I still say you're absolutely wrong about not being able to proselytize in pubic but I'm wondering how you reconcile the two, free speech and proselytizing.

Within the context of the discussion, when I stated "public" I was talking about courts and schools and the like. If you'll recall at the time, we were talking about an issue with a school graduation ceremony.

AFAIK, you can proselytize all you want from the street. (At least as long as you're not restricting the flow of traffic).

lukster · « **Reply #144 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:01:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Within the context of the discussion, when I stated "public" I was talking about courts and schools and the like.

You can proselytize all you want from the street.

I'm glad you finally admitted that. However, what makes you think that as a private citizen you can't proselytize in school or court, provided you aren't disrupting the normal buissiness of the institution? I think you're wrong about this too.

Sandman · « **Reply #145 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:08:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I'm glad you finally admitted that. However, what makes you think that as a private citizen you can't proselytize in school or court, provided you aren't disrupting the normal buissiness of the institution? I think you're wrong about this too.

Finally admitted to what I meant all along?

You're mincing words. Can a public school official proselytize at the school? No. Can a public school student proselytize at the school? No. Can a court official proselytize at the court? No.

There's no shortage of court cases as evidence of this.

lukster · « **Reply #146 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:18:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Finally admitted to what I meant all along?

You're mincing words. Can a public school official proselytize at the school? No. Can a public school student proselytize at the school? No. Can a court official proselytize at the court? No.

There's no shortage of court cases as evidence of this.

I never suggested that officials could proselytize while functioning in their official capacity. You're wrong about the other though.

Sandman · « **Reply #147 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:24:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I never suggested that officials could proselytize while functioning in their official capacity. You're wrong about the other though.

Oh ****... you're right. Brittany McComb was allowed to finish her valedictorian speech.

McCombs has sued the school. If you're right, she'll win.

lukster · « **Reply #148 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:28:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Oh ****... you're right. Brittany McComb was allowed to finish her valedictorian speech.

Thanks to the bullying of the ACLU. They have the schools afaid to sneeze for fear someone will say geshundeit. The fat lady ain't sung on this one yet though. I think it'll go all the way to the SC and be a nice black eye for the ACLU and win for freedom of speech.

Sandman · « **Reply #149 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:29:29 AM »

The ACLU wasn't there. The school warned her and she didn't heed the warning. Maybe next time she'll listen.