Members grayeyes777 Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 well he's probably guilty of something LMFAO!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DirtyBird Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Thoughtcrime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brick Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 This remnds me of a dope dealer we raided. We found a good amount of dope, along with guns in his house. He also fancied himself a rapper, and had a bunch of CD's made of his songs, with nice liner notes with his picture and name, etc. Most of the songs were about..... dealing dope. Making deliveries. How he conducted business, how he tried to stay off our radar. He specifically mentioned our unit. We didn't know all this beforehand, but it was nice to have the CD to play in court with transcriptions of the lyrics for the jury to read, so when he got on the stand and tried to deny he was a dealer, the prosecution could say, "But you say in this song..." That's really really funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tbdmlog Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Thoughtcrime! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Congress Shall Make No Law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Whether he said he was going to kill anyone for any reason, it should not be a crime. Whether he recorded it and sold it for profit, containing any threat, should not be a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members palmutant Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Thats soo Gangsta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Congress Shall Make No Law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.Whether he said he was going to kill anyone for any reason, it should not be a crime. Whether he recorded it and sold it for profit, containing any threat, should not be a crime. Constitution/Law. If it says it's wrong on a piece of paper, it must be ultimate truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Congress Shall Make No Law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.Whether he said he was going to kill anyone for any reason, it should not be a crime. Whether he recorded it and sold it for profit, containing any threat, should not be a crime. Apparently you've never heard of the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation on free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Constitution/Law.If it says it's wrong on a piece of paper, it must be ultimate truth. Wat No, seriously, what? The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Meaning that the constitution supersedes all other law in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Wat No, seriously, what? The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Meaning that the constitution supersedes all other law in the country. Like I said. If it says so on a piece of paper, it is the ultimate truth and must be so. You are free. It says it on the paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Apparently you've never heard of the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation on free speech. Yes, I have. A ruling made in the early 1900's. Consider the fact that the intent of the ruling was to say that issuing speech that is incorrect/false and dangerous is inherently distinguishable from speech that is true and dangerous, and is a feasible limitation on free speech. I personally don't agree with it completely, but that court ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. Oh, and by the way, the court ruling in question was levied agains a person who was distributing flyers protesting the draft in WWI, citing that a clear and present danger outweighed the necessity of free speech. A decision that was later overturned in 1969. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 WatNo, seriously, what?The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Meaning that the constitution supersedes all other law in the country. You do understand that there is abundant case law interpreting the Constitution, and that some of that case law applies limitations to free speech, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yes, I have. A ruling made in the early 1900's. Consider the fact that the intent of the ruling was to say that issuing speech that is incorrect/false and dangerous is inherently distinguishable from speech that is true and dangerous, and is a feasible limitation on free speech. I personally don't agree with it completely, but that court ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Warhorse Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Getting that {censored} off the street probably means one less murder and one less teenage pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Like I said. If it says so on a piece of paper, it is the ultimate truth and must be so. You are free. It says it on the paper I am free, and it's been written in the blood of my countrymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 I am free, and it's been written in the blood of my countrymen. Oh my.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 You do understand that there is abundant case law interpreting the Constitution, and that some of that case law applies limitations to free speech, right? Yes, I do, and I also understand that there are two sides to the issue. My assertion is that the right to speech and press should not be abridged in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Oh my.... Sorry, dude, I don't know what you find humorous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Ok? Fact is fact. Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to dismiss me as a nut?Yes, I do, and I also understand that there are two sides to the issue. My assertion is that the right to speech and press should not be abridged in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the content. Well, I guess I'll just have to dismiss you as a nut. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Warhorse Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 hate speech is illegal, so that law should apply to everyone not just white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members imgooley Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Well, I guess I'll just have to dismiss you as a nut. Sorry. That's fine, but may I ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Warhorse Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Uh, no it's not. See: Yates v. The United States and Brandenburg v. The State of Ohio. That's fine, but may I ask why? ok I'll check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Warhorse Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 Hey, imgooley this is what I came up with... The appellant, a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety [p445] of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 They should go ahead and put him to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mermph Posted August 13, 2009 Members Share Posted August 13, 2009 I hope he gets his weiner chopped off in jail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.