patrick.net

Extremist propaganda will simply be laughed away in the US. People here care more about this life than the afterlife, and rightfully so.

What's wrong with making fun of Jews? My Jewish friends make fun of themselves all the time. :-)

This is one of my favorite songs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAcf1RF2ps

Peter P says

Extremist propaganda will simply be laughed away in the US. People here care more about this life than the afterlife, and rightfully so.

France has 6 millions mushlims, most uneducated from Africa, most poor with no prospects. They will not laugh. If 1% are convinced, that's 60000 potential terrorists.
That will not be funny.

HydroCabron says

I suspect it's a special guilt-erasure principle. By saying "We're not even going to go so far as to allow raving whackaloons to say it didn't happen," they can atone for the guilt.

That's exactly what it is, an attempt to whitewash history.

indigenous says

Even with free speech there is still an allowable standard status quo of what is acceptable.

A self-contradicting statement.

Dan8267 says

And frequently laws involving "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" or "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" are thinly masked violations of free speech. Court gag orders are also an affront to the First Amendment.

Once again, for anyone who cares about what the law on the First Amendment IS (versus whatever they happen to think it "should be"), the law has always allowed "content neutral" restrictions, such as the time, place and manner of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution never gave us the right to say whatever we want whenever, or wherever we want.

Next week the wack job who hangs out near the WWI memorial will be arrested for the umteenth straight year when he tries to walk into the Capitol dome to interrupt the State of the Union to talk about the treatment of his son in jail. Should he be arrested for disorderly conduct, or would you let him proceed?

When judge Perry issued the gag order the thousands of people who came down to the Casey Anthony trial to discuss, child abuse, missing & exploited children, deadbeat dads, tot mom, jury nullification, Jews for Jesus, Darfur, hairstyles of the 1970s, etc, etc, etc, was he wrong for not allowing them to do so on Courthouse grounds?

If you think the US has free speech, go to a campus newspaper and try to publish a story that women are bad at maths.

CDon says

Once again, for anyone who cares about what the law on the First Amendment IS (versus whatever they happen to think it "should be"), the law has always allowed "content neutral" restrictions, such as the time, place and manner of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution never gave us the right to say whatever we want whenever, or wherever we want.

By definition "content neutral" means you can say whatever you want. And gag orders are the very definition of not content neutral as what's being gag is specific content.

In reality, America has never followed the First Amendment or the Second. We have neither the right to free speech or press, nor the right to bare arms. Whether or not we should have those rights is an entirely different matters. In practice, we do not have those rights and never did.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Extremist propaganda will simply be laughed away in the US. People here care more about this life than the afterlife, and rightfully so.

France has 6 millions mushlims, most uneducated from Africa, most poor with no prospects. They will not laugh. If 1% are convinced, that's 60000 potential terrorists.

That will not be funny.

Why did they even let these people in? At least in the US, even undocumented immigrants are hard-workers who want a better life.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you think the US has free speech, go to a campus newspaper and try to publish a story that women are bad at maths.

Bad example. Freedom of speech and press means that the government cannot prosecute you for the content of your speech. It does not mean that people cannot think you are an asshole regardless of whether or not their opinion has any foundation.

A good example would be the government fining a person for indecency or arresting a person for violating a gag order or holding a person in violation of parole for chatting in a forum.

Peter P says

Why did they even let these people in? At least in the US, even undocumented immigrants are hard-workers who want a better life.

Many undocumented then regularized. Others, just there to pay social security for french boomers.

Authorities always want to add population because it adds growth. They didn't pay too much attention to the nature of who they let in.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Why did they even let these people in? At least in the US, even undocumented immigrants are hard-workers who want a better life.

Many undocumented then regularized. Others, just there to pay social security for french boomers.

Authorities always want to add population because it adds growth. They didn't pay too much attention to the nature of who they let in.

Perhaps they should have an auction-based system.

Humanitarian immigration rarely makes sense.

Dan8267 says

By definition "content neutral" means you can say whatever you want. And gag orders are the very definition of not content neutral as what's being gag is specific content.

But not wherever you want. No matter what you may think it is, a "content neutral" restriction in legal parlance is as follows:

Judge issues an order - nobody is allowed to protest ANYTHING for the next 48 hours on courthouse grounds.

All of humanity could bloviate about whatever they want, all day long across the street from the courthouse. Or they could wait til the time restriction was over and then go back to the court complex to bloviate for the rest of their lives. All was limited by that order was the time and the place, not the content.

Likewise, in legal parlance a "content specific" restriction would be as follows:

Judge issues an order - nobody is allowed to speak about hairstyles of the 1970s for the next 48 hours on courthouse grounds.

Do you understand this now?

Dan8267 says

In reality, America has never followed the First Amendment

No. You are arguing for something that never even existed in the first place. In this regard, I dont blame you in that most people conflate the First Amendment to be some sort of flag wrapped romantic notion of a free speech freeforall which was never what it was, nor was intended to be. I forget now which one of the Federalist Papers it was now, but the philosophical underpinnings for the First Amendment were to keep people from being subject to the various Acts of Sedition they were potentially subject to under common law...maybe the 78th? The vast majority of people who today claim to have their 1st amendment rights "trampled" probably have no idea what sedition even means.

Either way, as I said before and will say again, you would be much better equipped to act as the patnet authority on all things legal if you had some sort of actual knowledge about what these laws really are by auditing a class or two at your local lawschool.

Heraclitusstudent says

France has 6 millions mushlims, most uneducated from Africa, most poor with no prospects.

Bullshit. Most muslims in france have been there a long time. Many came from the former french colonies (probably 90% of muslims in france are maghrebis from algeria, morocco, tunisia, libya, mauritania) during the labor immigration of the 60's and 70's. Then in 1976 a law was passed allowing them to settle and bring in their families. Many have french citizenship. France heavily tightened up immigration in the 80's and got very strict with muslim immigration in the laws passed in 2003 and 2006. The proposal of what became the 2006 law was what kicked off the riots in muslim communities in 2005.

Muslim's in france are heavily and openly descriminated against. Unemployment is high. Poverty is high. I've sat in france many times and listened to a harangue about how poorly americans treat blacks, but when I ask what about how the french treat north africans the response is always "that's different".

Heraclitusstudent says

Many undocumented then regularized. Others, just there to pay social security for french boomers

Yea right, the poorest 6% of the population is there to pay social security for french boomers. Sure.

Dan8267 says

A self-contradicting statement.

Tis not

bob2356 says

Heraclitusstudent says

France has 6 millions mushlims, most uneducated from Africa, most poor with no prospects.

Bullshit. Most muslims in france have been there a long time. Many came from the former french colonies (probably 90% of muslims in france are maghrebis from algeria, morocco, tunisia, libya, mauritania) during the labor immigration of the 60's and 70's. Then in 1976 a law was passed allowing them to settle and bring in their families. Many have french citizenship. France heavily tightened up immigration in the 80's and got very strict with muslim immigration in the laws passed in 2003 and 2006. The proposal of what became the 2006 law was what kicked off the riots in muslim communities in 2005.

You say "Bullshit", then agree with me. (algeria, morocco, tunisia, libya, mauritania) are in Africa, yes?

bob2356 says

Yea right, the poorest 6% of the population is there to pay social security for french boomers. Sure.

Yes, added population, even poor, contribute to the economy, makes sure wages are not too high, spend the money they earn, etc...

Real growth = population growth + productivity gains.

Dan8267 says

Freedom of speech and press means that the government cannot prosecute you for the content of your speech

Mostly correct. Now, say next week I walk in to the Capitol while the President is delivering the SOTU and shout: BARRACK OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVAH!!!

In this case, does the government have the right to arrest me for "disorderly conduct" or should I be permitted to continue to say how great he is?

Heraclitusstudent says

You say "Bullshit", then agree with me. (algeria, morocco, tunisia, libya, mauritania) are in Africa, yes?

I don't agree with you. Their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were from africa a generation or two or three ago. Most muslims in france today were born and educated there. They aren't coming across the border by the thousands every day like the US. France takes something like 70-80k immigrants a year from all of africa. Not all of those are muslim.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

Yea right, the poorest 6% of the population is there to pay social security for french boomers. Sure.

Yes, added population, even poor, contribute to the economy, makes sure wages are not too high, spend the money they earn, etc...

France gets less than 200k immigrants a year from the entire world, many are retirees. That's not any kind of substantial contribution to the economy of a country of 64 million people.

Your original statement was that the undocumented were there to pay for french baby boomers social security (not called that in france). Obviously you don't understand the difference between immigrants and undocumented workers. There are very few undocumented workers in france. Best estimate 200-300k tops. Good luck with 300k workers paying for the french baby boomers retirement. France isn't america were everyone goes wink, wink, nod, nod then hires illegals without any worry whatsoever. Living and working is just about impossible without a valid visa and anyone caught living there illegally gets booted out right now.

CDon says

But not wherever you want. No matter what you may think it is, a "content neutral" restriction in legal parlance is as follows:

I'm not arguing what the courts say. I'm arguing what the concept of liberty means. The courts frequently pay lip service to the Constitution while undermining it.

According to our government, the term due process means whatever the fuck the government wants it to mean, thus rendering the term meaningless.

CDon says

No. You are arguing for something that never even existed in the first place.

Now you're quibbling over phrasing. We're saying the same damn thing. Freedom of Speech has never existed in this country. How you want to phrase that is irrelevant.

CDon says

Either way, as I said before and will say again, you would be much better equipped to act as the patnet authority on all things legal if you had some sort of actual knowledge about what these laws really are by auditing a class or two at your local lawschool.

And this shows that you are missing the point that I'm making. I'm not arguing what the law is or is not. That's irrelevant to this discussion. I'm arguing that our country does not follow the principles it says it follows and the reason that conservative morons falsely call America "the freest nation in the world".

indigenous says

Tis not

Well you can't argue with that!

Here's an award for the most well-supported argument you've ever made. :)

CDon says

Dan8267 says

Freedom of speech and press means that the government cannot prosecute you for the content of your speech

CDon says

In this case, does the government have the right to arrest me for "disorderly conduct" or should I be permitted to continue to say how great he is?

Your example does not contradict my statement. An even better example of what your trying to demonstrate would be a graffiti artist vandalizing the wall of someone else's property. He's arrested, not for the content of the "art", but for the vandalism.

Freedom of speech means that people are free to communicate with those who are willing audiences. It does not mean you can violate other people's rights in the mechanics of how you communicate. For example, you cannot kill someone and use his blood to write a letter and be covered by freedom of speech. But what gets you in trouble is not the content of the letter but the fact that you just killed someone.

Your example is essentially the same thing with one notable exception. By disrupting a meeting of Congress, you are preventing others from exercising their freedom of speech.

I don't see why this isn't clear. It's not that complicated.

France is not consistent about freedom of speech

And neither is the United States of AmeriKa...

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

Even with free speech there is still an allowable standard status quo of what is acceptable.

A self-contradicting statement.

Dan8267 says

ndigenous says

Tis not

Well you can't argue with that!

Here's an award for the most well-supported argument you've ever made. :)

Allright mutt what is self contradictory about it?

Life is game. You want to arrive at a goal with minimal hiccups. Things like rights and equality and justice are simply road signs along the way.

Dan8267 says

CDon says

No. You are arguing for something that never even existed in the first place.

Now you're quibbling over phrasing. We're saying the same damn thing. Freedom of Speech has never existed in this country. How you want to phrase that is irrelevant.

Yes, I think so...sorry. You earlier said "First Amendment" which is a law versus "Freedom of Speech" (and now liberty) which are the concept(s) I think you were getting at. If I may, when you said:

"In reality, America has never followed the First Amendment"

I think you meant to say:

"In reality, America has never followed Freedom of Speech"

In regular discourse, I happen to switch between the two frequently, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Dan8267 says

I'm not arguing what the law is or is not.

OK, I see now that at the beginning of the thread you were talking about freedom of speech (which is fine - and I should have been more specific about that), but when you said:

Dan8267 says

Court gag orders are also an affront to the First Amendment.

That is a statement of what the law is, and in this case, just happens to be wrong.

indigenous says

Even with free speech there is still an allowable standard status quo of what is acceptable.

indigenous says

Allright mutt what is self contradictory about it?

To disallow content of speech is by definition a restriction on the freedom of that speech. Although one could argue that speech should be free except for a few explicit prohibitions that infringe upon the rights of others, as I have done above, one cannot logically argue that such prohibitions are not a diminishment of free speech, only that they are necessary for the protection of other important rights such as the right not to be terrorized with threats of violence.

By the way, if I were a mutt, you would be anally raping me.

CDon says

Yes, I think so...sorry. You earlier said "First Amendment" which is a law versus "Freedom of Speech" (and now liberty) which are the concept(s) I think you were getting at.

The First Amendment is first and foremost an idea, not a law. I would argue that, in practice, the entire Bill of Rights isn't treated as law, but rather guidelines to be loosely interpreted. Laws are, in practice, far more specific and detailed.

I'm not saying that the Bill of Rights should not be upheld as a literal, absolute law. I'm saying that it is not in practice regardless of what lawyers, judges, and politicians say. For example, if the Second Amendment were treated as a law in practice, it would be legal for you to possess nuclear weapons.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Forget about the militia part. That's just a distraction for this point. The point is the amendment is about arms, not guns, and nuclear weapons most certainly are arms. When the founding fathers signed the Bill of Rights, they had no idea that the power of weapons would reach such levels as nuclear weapons that clearly no private citizen should possess. The idea that private citizens should be allowed to possess any weapon that the state possesses was quite reasonable in the 18th century when state-of-the-art technology was the musket. So, yes, indeed, if the Second Amendment were an enforced law as it is written, it would be legal for anyone, including felons, to possess nuclear weapons, land mines, assault rifles, Apache helicopters, weaponized smallpox, etc.

bob2356 says

France gets less than 200k immigrants a year from the entire world, many are retirees. That's not any kind of substantial contribution to the economy of a country of 64 million people.

The total number of french people from recent immigration origins (1st and 2nd generations) is about 12 millions. Or nearly 20% of the total. This may not pay all pensions, but I'd say it helps quite a bit.

The best way to pay for pension is to raise the retirement age one year every year.

Dan8267 says

To disallow content of speech is by definition a restriction on the freedom of that speech.

The reality is that the tyranny of the majority trumps freedom of speech as with minimum wage, polically correct everything, what is taught in shool, ones belief in God, etc.

You do have a thing about sodomy.

Dan8267 says

The First Amendment is first and foremost an idea, not a law. I would argue that, in practice, the entire Bill of Rights isn't treated as law, but rather guidelines to be loosely interpreted. Laws are, in practice, far more specific and detailed.

Your understanding about what the law “is” is seriously flawed. First and foremost, not every body of law has been codified with federal or state statutes. Particularly, areas like torts, property, chancery. And even contract are nothing more than a bunch of rulings handed down by judges over time (i.e. common law). In certain areas there is literally nothing that is written by federal or state legislatures whatsoever, and even if it were, it may not take primacy over the common law body of work that proceeded it. You can have situations where the 800 year old Magna Carta will have more relevance than say the U.C.C., last updated in 2007.

On the flip side, the US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is the absolute starting points for all things that flow therefrom, be it statutes, caselaw or otherwise. It is the Supreme Law of the Land and has been ever since the last real challenge to the Article VI Supremacy Clause was handed down in McCulloch V. Maryland. Thus in these areas of the law, whether it be Congress, the State, or a judicial ruling, not a single one of these bodies can say or do anything that will be upheld as the end all be all “law” if it violates the Constitution.

Accordingly, when laypersons say the law is X because they can cite to their state code section they found on the internet, they may have a rudimentary understanding of what will happen say 75% to maybe 95% of the time, their understanging of the law is seriously and sometimes fatally flawed until they understand the remaining nuance you get from practice.

I recently had the distinct pleasure of politely telling my city bureaucrats to “go fuck themselves” when they cited to a code section that was fundamentally flawed (but untested as of that time). Like you, they live in a black and white world of if it says X, then X is what applies. Yet it took no more than a 10 minute phone call between myself and the City Attorney who immediately spotted the same fundamental flaw I did, and just like that 6 months of wrangling between my client and the city was over, and that entire section of the code is being re-written as we speak.

Look, while I don’t ever expect you to get to this level of proficiency, but for pete’s sake, as much as you like to talk about the subject matter, please take a class or two at your law school. Start with Con law, then Crim Pro and then come back here and dominate all your adversaries here on Patnet.

Dan8267 says

So, yes, indeed, if the Second Amendment were an enforced law as it is written, it would be legal for anyone, including felons, to possess nuclear weapons, land mines, assault rifles, Apache helicopters, weaponized smallpox, etc.

This is a great example of what I am talking about. Your hamfisted analysis of the Second Amendment was clearly shaped, not by lawyers and judges who understand complex issues (explained to laypeople as "technicalities") but by pols and opinionmakers who handwaive over the details and nuance. Further, as you are about to see in the upcoming decades, those arguments were made in a pre DC v. Heller world.

Do you know how infrequently SCOTUS has weighed in on the 2nd amendment in the last 200+ years? When I was in law school the 2nd was still considered far and away the most cryptic section of the constitution. All that changed post 2008.

Have you ever read Heller? Did you know there is a statement in there (from Scalia of all people) which has conservatives “in the know” scared shitless? But alas, it was obiter dictum. What is obiter dictim Dan, and why does that matter?

The Scalia dictum may be the most important breakthrough of our time, but first we have to get through the current Privileges and Immunities challenges related to The Slaughterhouse Cases (Mc.Donald v. Chicago). What are The Slaughterhouse Cases Dan, and why do they matter?

For those who understand it, its not unreasonable to make comparisons to the glacial shift that we are seeing now post Heller, to say the changes that took place from the time of Plessy v. Ferguson until the breakthrough in Brown v. BOE. Where are Heller, Miller and Cruickshank on that spectrum Dan? Will we see that “breakthrough” case in our lifetimes?

Bottom line, its an exciting time to be in law school discussing landmark cases like Heller (and Keno v. New London) which were both gamechangers that came out after I was out working in other areas. Sadly, I don’t care enough about the issue to try to educate more passionate people such as yourselves, and even now my knowledge on the Second Amendment is hopelessly dated as much of it came pre 2008.

All that said, perhaps the most vexing thing here is the fact that someone like you who is so intensely passionate about the subject matter is at the same time so profoundly ignorant of how any of this stuff works. Honestly, Ive never seen anything like it. Again, I don’t expect you to take and pass the bar, but 4-6 months of study, and a few hundred bucks of your money would completely and profoundly shape your view of what the law is, and how it works. This I promise you.

CDon says

Your understanding about what the law “is” is seriously flawed.

The law is what the law does, not what is written and ignored. The Soviet Constitution stated that everyone had freedom of speech and press as well. The actual law in the Soviet Union was different.

Again, I'm not arguing legal status and that's quite frankly political bullshit. I'm arguing reality, practice, and actual life experience.

CDon says

Your hamfisted analysis of the Second Amendment was clearly shaped, not by lawyers and judges who understand complex issues

You are entitled to your opinion. That does not change the fact that the Second Amendment as it was written and intended would allow for the private citizen to posses the same kinds of arms that the government possesses and would be necessary to have an equitable military power to the point of being able to violently overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

The founding fathers simply did not envision weapons of mass destruction.

I don't care what legal subtleties you think I don't understand. They are not relevant to the idea I'm conveying. And quite frankly, you cannot have any idea of how well I understand any parts of the law because I have not discuss legality. Anything you think I said in this regards comes entirely from your imagination. Nor am I willing to discuss the subject matter with you as you clearly have a religious outlook on it and so such a discussion would not be productive or interesting.

Heraclitusstudent says

bob2356 says

France gets less than 200k immigrants a year from the entire world, many are retirees. That's not any kind of substantial contribution to the economy of a country of 64 million people.

The total number of french people from recent immigration origins (1st and 2nd generations) is about 12 millions. Or nearly 20% of the total. This may not pay all pensions, but I'd say it helps quite a bit.

That;s going back 60 years for christ sakes. Be serious. More than a few are collecting pensions at this point not paying in.

Dan8267 says

They are not relevant to the idea I'm conveying. And quite frankly, you cannot have any idea of how well I understand any parts of the law because I have not discuss legality

Actually you do both Dan. You often switch between ideas and legality with a foot in each world. In my experience, no one who has a practical understanding of the law speaks with the sort of absolutes that you do. Ive never seen anything quite like it. If you were an attorney and you spoke like that in open court, you would almost certainly would have been sanctioned for comity or candor by now.

On the other hand, much of the time you are just "talking & shit", spouting your opinions and viewpoints the way a lot of people do on Patnet, and 99.5% of the time, I don't give you grief in the slightest. While unorthodox, I find your ideas interesting.

You will notice, the only time I give you grief is the other 0.5% of the time when you get all Clarrence Darrow on us and pontificiate in an axiomatic, black and white way. Here is a brief example of what I am talking about (boldface mine):

Dan8267 says

Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest

Dan8267 says

Getting an unverified call that a couple in engaging in sex in a car -- which there is no evidence is the truth -- is not probable cause by any standard.

Dan8267 says

The Fourth Amendment is irrelevant

Dan8267 says

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

Dan8267 says

Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

Dan8267 says

if I understand your argument, you are claiming that courts have not violated First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech about jury nullification because there was only one case of a person being arrested for it and he was acquitted by the judge.

If that is your argument, then it is incorrect

Dan8267 says

the Forchion case is a clear indication of the state violating the First Amendment rights of a citizen

Dan8267 says

Court gag orders are also an affront to the First Amendment.

Dan8267 says

And gag orders are the very definition of not content neutral as what's being gag is specific content.

This is the most damning evidence I've ever been privy to...

http://patrick.net/?p=1275469&c=1168650#comment-1168650

CDon says

You often switch between ideas and legality with a foot in each world.

Honey, you're mixing two entirely different conversations and losing the context of both.