Jump to content

Question: 1st Amendment

Rate this topic


FrankStar

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, lichum said:

 

 "The coarsening of the culture" continues unabated.

Folks are enslaved to an undignified existence.  Our heritage should be an example, but alas, it is not to many.

AKN-2 USS Sagittarius

BE ENCOURAGING, NOT DISCOURAGING

<*((())))>< <*((())))><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is profanity or coarse language included in free speech protections?

 

Are generally unpleasant (non-violent) demonstrations protected?

 

(I know the case law, I'm looking for opinions from the denizens here.)

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FrankStar said:

Well, let's nip that in the bud right now.  

 

 

I took three different Constitutional Law classes from three different perspectives in college  (U.S. History, Political Science, and Journalism).

 

How many did you take?

and Donald Drumpf is President.

 

your point?

"Ok, Eddy you were right" - minivin5
"Oddly enough, Eddy is right fairly often"- TimS

"Eddy is correct" - TomT

"Say what you will about Eh-ddy but he actually does know a few things." - The Commish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FrankStar said:

Is profanity or coarse language included in free speech protections?

 

Are generally unpleasant (non-violent) demonstrations protected?

 

(I know the case law, I'm looking for opinions from the denizens here.)

 

Profanity and coarse language are indeed Free Speech.  However, if I catch one of my employees using either, I will fire them.  That is not a violation of their 1A rights, and my firing them does nothing to stop or hinder them from continuing to exercise them.

 

I would say that unpleasant demonstrations are "tolerated" more than "protected," as in every single large, you can find instances of loitering, littering, J Walking, urinating in public, trespassing, and any number of offenses that could be used to arrest people en masse.  But the authorities choose not to, because they feel it's not in their best interests to do so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eddy said:

and Donald Drumpf is President.

 

your point?

I notice you removed the text of the 1st Amendment.  The current president is irrelevant in a discussion of Constitutional provisions.

 

How you or I feel about him has nothing to do with the current discussion.  Because the Constitution isn't about feelings, but law.

 

So stop feeling, and start studying so you might be prepared for a more intelligent and considered debate.

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoeyZac said:

... loitering, littering, J Walking, urinating in public, trespassing, 

 

 

...Are state or local crimes in and of themselves.   They have nothing to do with free speech and your conflation of them with free speech is not only disingenuous, but wrong.

 

 

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FrankStar said:

...Are state or local crimes in and of themselves.   They have nothing to do with free speech and your conflation of them with free speech is not only disingenuous, but wrong.

 

I wasn't talking about "Free Speech" being a crime.

 

I was talking about whether or not "generally unpleasant (non-violent) demonstrations" qualify as "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," and whether or not, if we're going to be all technical like, if by their very nature, any large gathering is eventually going to be a large conglomeration of "local crimes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, dena said:

Federal employees have their free speech abridged in some cases.

 

"Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888, makes it a crime for a commissioned military officer to use contemptuous words against the President and Congress, among others. The Department of Defense has also expanded this rule to include all military enlisted personnel (DOD Directive 1344.10)." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slacker said:

"Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888, makes it a crime for a commissioned military officer to use contemptuous words against the President and Congress, among others. The Department of Defense has also expanded this rule to include all military enlisted personnel (DOD Directive 1344.10)." 

For that matter, is disclosing classified info "Free Speech?"

 

Is lying under oath "Free Speech?"

 

Is lying to the FBI "Free Speech?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeyZac said:

if by their very nature, any large gathering is eventually going to be a large conglomeration of "local crimes."

Are you sure about that?  I've been part of many large political gatherings and I've never seen a crime committed.

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeyZac said:

For that matter, is disclosing classified info "Free Speech?"

 

Is lying under oath "Free Speech?"

 

Is lying to the FBI "Free Speech?"

There are codified laws against those things.

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeyZac said:

Not one instance of J Walking, Loitering, or Trespassing?

 

Nope.  The streets were blocked off in advance.

Pissants don't get to assign positions to me.

 

Think of my posts as Rorschach tests.  How you respond to them tells more about you than it does about the post.

 

I also do not respond to deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...