Comments on: Exceptions to the First Amendment http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/ Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: narogen http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15849 narogen Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:21:14 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15849 Apparently you have not considered law enforcement which has permission above the citizens it is sworn to protect, too lie at will if it means they will get their man . Apparently you have not considered law enforcement which has permission above the citizens it is sworn to protect, too lie at will if it means they will get their man .

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15848 Anonymous Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:57:59 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15848 Learn to spell. Learn to spell.

]]> By: Reteo http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15847 Reteo Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:09:35 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15847 When a trade occurs, there needs to be mutual consent. Otherwise, one side is using force on the other. A contract states that consent is given only if specific conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, then the consent is not given. Should one receive something under false pretenses, then they are either stealing or enslaving, because without meeting the conditions, such reception is not with the originator's consent. Therefore, breaking a contract is the same as initiating force on the remaining side that does meet their contractual obligations. When a trade occurs, there needs to be mutual consent. Otherwise, one side is using force on the other.

A contract states that consent is given only if specific conditions are met. If the conditions are not met, then the consent is not given.

Should one receive something under false pretenses, then they are either stealing or enslaving, because without meeting the conditions, such reception is not with the originator’s consent. Therefore, breaking a contract is the same as initiating force on the remaining side that does meet their contractual obligations.

]]> By: The Threat http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15846 The Threat Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:53:26 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15846 "That’s right, if the government says it has a compelling interest in restricting your speech, then it will do so, and the courts will look the other way." And that changes nothing... “That’s right, if the government says it has a compelling interest in restricting your speech, then it will do so, and the courts will look the other way.”

And that changes nothing…

]]> By: MarkN http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15845 MarkN Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:22:02 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15845 Yes, and the anti-federalists were ultimately correct in their contention that substituting the Constitution for the Articles of Confederation would lead to a centralized dictatorship by the Executive. As you point out, the Alien and Sedition Acts were among the earliest laws designed to restrict freedom of speech under the new Constitution. Some of the Founding Fathers were outright statists (e.g., John Adams), while others (Jefferson) were true libertarians. Jefferson thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and pardoned those convicted under those laws. All this demonstrates that pieces of paper, such as Constitutions, are no guarantors of liberty. Yes, and the anti-federalists were ultimately correct in their contention that substituting the Constitution for the Articles of Confederation would lead to a centralized dictatorship by the Executive. As you point out, the Alien and Sedition Acts were among the earliest laws designed to restrict freedom of speech under the new Constitution. Some of the Founding Fathers were outright statists (e.g., John Adams), while others (Jefferson) were true libertarians. Jefferson thought the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and pardoned those convicted under those laws. All this demonstrates that pieces of paper, such as Constitutions, are no guarantors of liberty.

]]> By: Michael Hampton http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15844 Michael Hampton Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:45:48 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15844 Ironic perhaps, but not at all surprising. Every government moves to consolidate its power and to remain in power. Restrictions in law on violent overthrow, or talking about it, have existed since almost the moment the Constitution was ratified. Ironic perhaps, but not at all surprising. Every government moves to consolidate its power and to remain in power. Restrictions in law on violent overthrow, or talking about it, have existed since almost the moment the Constitution was ratified.

]]> By: MarkN http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15843 MarkN Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:39:57 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15843 Though the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it radically proclaims the right of the people to throw off a government that displeases them. The means of such an overthrow do not have to be peaceable. If people have the right to determine the government that they want, then they must have the right to talk about how to achieve their goal. That means advocating violent revolution if necessary. Obviouly, a restriction on speech that would lead to overthrow of the government is designed only to protect government and not the people. George III wanted to round up and punish all the leaders of the American Revolution, the people we (supposedly) venerate, because they were traitors and advocated violence. It is at least ironic that a country founded upon violent overthrow of an existing government should attempt to restrict the means of its own creation. Though the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it radically proclaims the right of the people to throw off a government that displeases them. The means of such an overthrow do not have to be peaceable. If people have the right to determine the government that they want, then they must have the right to talk about how to achieve their goal. That means advocating violent revolution if necessary. Obviouly, a restriction on speech that would lead to overthrow of the government is designed only to protect government and not the people. George III wanted to round up and punish all the leaders of the American Revolution, the people we (supposedly) venerate, because they were traitors and advocated violence. It is at least ironic that a country founded upon violent overthrow of an existing government should attempt to restrict the means of its own creation.

]]> By: Louis http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15842 Louis Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:18:16 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15842 Say what you have to say without fear, they will come for you anyway. Say what you have to say without fear, they will come for you anyway.

]]> By: I am me! http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15841 I am me! Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:45:55 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15841 To me, the issue of pornograpy is one of WHO defines what is porn and why. It's always seemed to me that those who would forbid porn are in effect telling me what is or is not moral to show or see in images or describe or read in print. My problem with that is that NO government is my minister, priest, confessor, moralist, or parent -- and they have no right to attempt to act as such. When governments establish what is to be regarded as pornographic or not, I feel they (or the majority they claim to represent) are trying to act as if they are my source of morality. So I'm puzzled as to why I've never heard of anti-porn laws being challenged on the grounds that they violate the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution. As for laws prohibiting child-porn, I'd love to see law enforcement officials treat such images as proof of rape and abuse of the children shown by the perpetrators in those images and by the producers and distributors of child porn.... To me, the issue of pornograpy is one of WHO defines what is porn and why. It’s always seemed to me that those who would forbid porn are in effect telling me what is or is not moral to show or see in images or describe or read in print. My problem with that is that NO government is my minister, priest, confessor, moralist, or parent — and they have no right to attempt to act as such. When governments establish what is to be regarded as pornographic or not, I feel they (or the majority they claim to represent) are trying to act as if they are my source of morality. So I’m puzzled as to why I’ve never heard of anti-porn laws being challenged on the grounds that they violate the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution. As for laws prohibiting child-porn, I’d love to see law enforcement officials treat such images as proof of rape and abuse of the children shown by the perpetrators in those images and by the producers and distributors of child porn….

]]> By: Wiccans http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15840 Wiccans Wed, 30 May 2007 01:10:16 +0000 http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/24/exceptions-to-the-first-amendment/#comment-15840 We have met Wiccans who's philosophy is Harm ye none!! This is a good thing. If we can all find a way to compromise, the world would be a better place. Did anyone remember the Pilgrims were Muslim so, we were told??? What about 911?? What about the cost of it to all of us??? What about prevention???911 will never go away.. All of us will pay for it forever!! We have to find a better way before we destroy the world!! What about a compromise????? Could we all come to some sort of agreement and bring the troops home???What if that dead troop was your father, brother or relative?? What is the solution??? We have met Wiccans who’s philosophy is Harm ye none!! This is a good thing. If we can all find a way to compromise, the world would be a better place. Did anyone remember the Pilgrims were Muslim so, we were told??? What about 911?? What about the cost of it to all of us??? What about prevention???911 will never go away.. All of us will pay for it forever!! We have to find a better way before we destroy the world!! What about a compromise????? Could we all come to some sort of agreement and bring the troops home???What if that dead troop was your father, brother or relative?? What is the solution???

]]>