welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Random News Stories of Note
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 800, 801, 802 ... 805, 806, 807  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not really. Your argument was that people can protest outside of abortion clinics, they just have to be some arbitrary distance away. Like the Moon, maybe. But that's not an abridgment of anyone's rights, nuh uh, because you can still write letters to the editor from the Moon, yup yup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

uh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5189
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so

Mindslicer

I want to protest the lack of smoking bans

can I protest from inside your left lung

without your consent

or do I have to do it from somewhere where I'm not actively hindering you

like

some arbitrary distance away from your lung
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Inside my left lung is not public property.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3140
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roanoke, VA police told a paraplegic man his wheelchair was a vehicle that belonged in traffic, then demanded he stand up.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/larry-dodson/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17047
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Not really. Your argument was that people can protest outside of abortion clinics, they just have to be some arbitrary distance away. Like the Moon, maybe. But that's not an abridgment of anyone's rights, nuh uh, because you can still write letters to the editor from the Moon, yup yup.


we will forget your typical over-the-top insistence that i wanted protesters limited to the moon. but just to make it clear - what i am saying (what i in fact explicitly said) is that people should not be able to impede other people from conducting legitimate business. you didn't bother to ask my opinion of strikers who block access to businesses or assault people trying to enter them; i'm opposed to that sort of thing as well. you can say what you like, but don't block the door. and again - your right to speak does not include any right to force me to listen. and that's what these people really want - the right to force people to listen to them, to have to answer them.

and that's the only thing having to be an "arbitrary distance away" gives you - the ability to force someone to listen to you. do you really believe that any other sort of protest has no impact? that writing things (pamphlets, books, and yes, letters to the editor) that many, many other people can read has no impact on things? that holding protests in other locations, even far removed, does not get your message across?

hm. wonder why the founders were so interested in things like freedom of the press and the right to assemble. since those are apparently meaningless actions in expressing political beliefs and effecting change.

the first amendment is about not allowing people's opinions to be silenced. the fact that it allows you to express those opinions from a distance, in any medium you chose - yes, that you can even shout them from the moon! is kind of an essential part of it.

you also said that people couldn't or shouldn't be prevented from protesting on any public property, and when i pointed out that people _are_ prevented from protesting on the public property immediately in front of the supreme court building, you made the completely idiotic statement that they can't protest inside the vault at fort knox either - which is very definitely _not_ public property. so who is being illogical?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5189
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Inside my left lung is not public property.


naturally I'd only do it while you were on public property

and I wouldn't even touch your lung
just send a flying shouty drone in there
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Not really. Your argument was that people can protest outside of abortion clinics, they just have to be some arbitrary distance away. Like the Moon, maybe. But that's not an abridgment of anyone's rights, nuh uh, because you can still write letters to the editor from the Moon, yup yup.


we will forget your typical over-the-top insistence that i wanted protesters limited to the moon. but just to make it clear - what i am saying (what i in fact explicitly said) is that people should not be able to impede other people from conducting legitimate business. you didn't bother to ask my opinion of strikers who block access to businesses or assault people trying to enter them; i'm opposed to that sort of thing as well. you can say what you like, but don't block the door. and again - your right to speak does not include any right to force me to listen. and that's what these people really want - the right to force people to listen to them, to have to answer them.


Then you must think that any public space that's within 35 feet from the entrance to any private building should also be off limits, to prevent anyone who might want to protest that business from assaulting/hindering/forcing other people to listen to them. Which then places just about every sidewalk in every city off limits. That's the way the law is supposed to work, in that it's supposed to be applied equally. The MA law that was overturned did not do that. The prohibition against falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater doesn't apply only to theaters, after all.

Quote:
and that's the only thing having to be an "arbitrary distance away" gives you - the ability to force someone to listen to you. do you really believe that any other sort of protest has no impact? that writing things (pamphlets, books, and yes, letters to the editor) that many, many other people can read has no impact on things? that holding protests in other locations, even far removed, does not get your message across?


Whether or not other forms of protest have an impact is immaterial. Would a blanket ban on in-person protests not be an abridgment of free speech because you still retain the ability to engage in alternate forms of speech?

Quote:
hm. wonder why the founders were so interested in things like freedom of the press and the right to assemble. since those are apparently meaningless actions in expressing political beliefs and effecting change.

the first amendment is about not allowing people's opinions to be silenced. the fact that it allows you to express those opinions from a distance, in any medium you chose - yes, that you can even shout them from the moon! is kind of an essential part of it.


I just checked, and the First Amendment makes no mention of distance.

Quote:
you also said that people couldn't or shouldn't be prevented from protesting on any public property, and when i pointed out that people _are_ prevented from protesting on the public property immediately in front of the supreme court building, you made the completely idiotic statement that they can't protest inside the vault at fort knox either - which is very definitely _not_ public property. so who is being illogical?


Did you read the regulations?

Quote:
REGULATION TWO
In order to protect the Supreme Court Building and grounds, to protect the persons and property therein, or to maintain suitable order and decorum, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the responsibilities outlined in 40 U.S.C. 6102, may, at any time, declare the Supreme Court Building and grounds, or any portion thereof, closed to the general public. Any person who, having been informed of the closure of the building or grounds or portion of the building or grounds, enters the closed area without the authorization of the Marshal or refuses to leave the closed area after being requested to do so shall be subject to arrest and subject to penalties set forth in 40 U.S.C. 6137.


So there are times where the grounds may be declared off limits to the general public, the way Fort Knox is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Inside my left lung is not public property.


naturally I'd only do it while you were on public property

and I wouldn't even touch your lung
just send a flying shouty drone in there


Nah, that still wouldn't work. The inside of my lung is still private property even if I'm standing on public property, just like the way the inside of your car is private property even when you're driving on public roadways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5189
Location: No.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, and people need to stop getting cigarette smoke in my private property



but don't get caught up on this idea of "public property". I don't think that it's what you really care about here.

"Public property" is a useful social construct that we choose to maintain.

it's not an end to itself, so any argument that you make from it is entirely missing the point

You want to set up a defensible front for free expression, right? The doorway to a clinic is not that defensible front. If you give it up you won't lose anything, unless you want to keep hurting girls who are already going through a tough time. There's no slippery slope on the other side -- the wall we've built to protect free expression is still there.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17047
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Not really. Your argument was that people can protest outside of abortion clinics, they just have to be some arbitrary distance away. Like the Moon, maybe. But that's not an abridgment of anyone's rights, nuh uh, because you can still write letters to the editor from the Moon, yup yup.


we will forget your typical over-the-top insistence that i wanted protesters limited to the moon. but just to make it clear - what i am saying (what i in fact explicitly said) is that people should not be able to impede other people from conducting legitimate business. you didn't bother to ask my opinion of strikers who block access to businesses or assault people trying to enter them; i'm opposed to that sort of thing as well. you can say what you like, but don't block the door. and again - your right to speak does not include any right to force me to listen. and that's what these people really want - the right to force people to listen to them, to have to answer them.


Then you must think that any public space that's within 35 feet from the entrance to any private building should also be off limits, to prevent anyone who might want to protest that business from assaulting/hindering/forcing other people to listen to them. Which then places just about every sidewalk in every city off limits. That's the way the law is supposed to work, in that it's supposed to be applied equally. The MA law that was overturned did not do that. The prohibition against falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater doesn't apply only to theaters, after all.

are you really this stupid? there is clearly a difference between walking down a sidewalk, or even just standing next to a building, and standing there holding signs and accosting people approaching the building and following them to the doors and trying to dissuade them from entering the building. shouting "fire" and protesting are actual, identifiable actions, and thus subject to legislative limitation. merely wanting to protest, like thinking about shouting fire, are not. so yes, even people who are _thinking_ about protesting are free to walk down any public sidewalk. those who are actively protesting, and preventing other people from freely walking down the sidewalk - yes, that i think is a problem. and when there is a history of said people acting violently the people walking down the sidewalk - that's a definite problem.

Mindslicer wrote:
Quote:
and that's the only thing having to be an "arbitrary distance away" gives you - the ability to force someone to listen to you. do you really believe that any other sort of protest has no impact? that writing things (pamphlets, books, and yes, letters to the editor) that many, many other people can read has no impact on things? that holding protests in other locations, even far removed, does not get your message across?


Whether or not other forms of protest have an impact is immaterial. Would a blanket ban on in-person protests not be an abridgment of free speech because you still retain the ability to engage in alternate forms of speech?

a blanket ban, yes. but this is not a blanket ban on in-person protests - just a limitation of how close you can get to the people you are protesting.
just like the law that says you can't electioneer within 100 ft of a poll does not stop people from electioneering - it just keeps them from interfering with people who come to vote.

Mindslicer wrote:
Quote:
hm. wonder why the founders were so interested in things like freedom of the press and the right to assemble. since those are apparently meaningless actions in expressing political beliefs and effecting change.

the first amendment is about not allowing people's opinions to be silenced. the fact that it allows you to express those opinions from a distance, in any medium you chose - yes, that you can even shout them from the moon! is kind of an essential part of it.


I just checked, and the First Amendment makes no mention of distance.

but you did see the bits about freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, right? why do you think those are in there, if the only freedom to protest they felt it necessary to protect was the freedom of in-person protest?

Mindslicer wrote:
Quote:
you also said that people couldn't or shouldn't be prevented from protesting on any public property, and when i pointed out that people _are_ prevented from protesting on the public property immediately in front of the supreme court building, you made the completely idiotic statement that they can't protest inside the vault at fort knox either - which is very definitely _not_ public property. so who is being illogical?


Did you read the regulations?

Quote:
REGULATION TWO
In order to protect the Supreme Court Building and grounds, to protect the persons and property therein, or to maintain suitable order and decorum, the Marshal of the Supreme Court, pursuant to the responsibilities outlined in 40 U.S.C. 6102, may, at any time, declare the Supreme Court Building and grounds, or any portion thereof, closed to the general public. Any person who, having been informed of the closure of the building or grounds or portion of the building or grounds, enters the closed area without the authorization of the Marshal or refuses to leave the closed area after being requested to do so shall be subject to arrest and subject to penalties set forth in 40 U.S.C. 6137.


So there are times where the grounds may be declared off limits to the general public, the way Fort Knox is.

and this makes the supreme court grounds not public property...how? your argument was that there should be no bans on protest on public property nowhere nohow. the fact that the supreme court says that they can, too, restrict public protest on their (personal) public property kinda shoots your argument in the foot. even if they only do it once in a decade, they are saying that you can, in fact, restrict the right to free speech in a public space. and you don't even need to do it for security (which is what limiting access to fort knox is all about - and why it is no more a "public space" than a nuclear submarine base) - it is allowable just to "maintain suitable order and decorum". hounding people to the door of a business is hardly maintaining order and decorum.

of course, that very regulation acknowledges that you _can_ close the area to protect "the persons and property therein" - which is kind of what the massachusetts legislature was thinking, when they decided to restrict access to people associated with people who did things like murder clinic workers and bomb clinics. and they didn't even close the area to the general public, which is what the supreme court regulation does.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
yes, and people need to stop getting cigarette smoke in my private property



but don't get caught up on this idea of "public property". I don't think that it's what you really care about here.

"Public property" is a useful social construct that we choose to maintain.

it's not an end to itself, so any argument that you make from it is entirely missing the point

You want to set up a defensible front for free expression, right? The doorway to a clinic is not that defensible front. If you give it up you won't lose anything, unless you want to keep hurting girls who are already going through a tough time. There's no slippery slope on the other side -- the wall we've built to protect free expression is still there.


Actually, I agree that people should not be able to obstruct entrances to facilities and call it free speech. Fortunately, there's already a law prohibiting that. It's been around for twenty years, and hasn't been repealed.

Edit: Mouse should probably click that link too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12072
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like Tibetans may have inherited some genes that help them deal with high altitudes from Denisovan hominins. This is also the strongest signal of Denisovan interbreeding outside of Melanesians, but they don't have this particular set of genes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17047
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Heretical Rants wrote:
yes, and people need to stop getting cigarette smoke in my private property



but don't get caught up on this idea of "public property". I don't think that it's what you really care about here.

"Public property" is a useful social construct that we choose to maintain.

it's not an end to itself, so any argument that you make from it is entirely missing the point

You want to set up a defensible front for free expression, right? The doorway to a clinic is not that defensible front. If you give it up you won't lose anything, unless you want to keep hurting girls who are already going through a tough time. There's no slippery slope on the other side -- the wall we've built to protect free expression is still there.


Actually, I agree that people should not be able to obstruct entrances to facilities and call it free speech. Fortunately, there's already a law prohibiting that. It's been around for twenty years, and hasn't been repealed.

Edit: Mouse should probably click that link too.


i did. nice to know it's illegal to offer actual physical violence.

still not clear why this makes it OK for the supremes to ban protests on _their_ public space, but say other jurisdictions can't do the same.
or why, since the law linked allows you to shout, you have to get right up in someone's face to let them know you are protesting them.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1790
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
still not clear why this makes it OK for the supremes to ban protests on _their_ public space, but say other jurisdictions can't do the same.


Take it up with them. All of the Justices struck down the MA law, not just the conservative ones.

Quote:
or why, since the law linked allows you to shout, you have to get right up in someone's face to let them know you are protesting them.


Who says you have to get right up in their face? The ruling merely says that banning that action when there is no threat of violence is unconstitutional.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 800, 801, 802 ... 805, 806, 807  Next
Page 801 of 807

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group