Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Constitutional chicanery.

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 8:44:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

--Elena Kagan, albeit undertaking her professional duties in arguing the administration's positions, which may or may not be her own.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 8:45:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 8:44:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

This is bull.

--Elena Kagan, albeit undertaking her professional duties in arguing the administration's positions, which may or may not be her own.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:06:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 8:47:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imma kill a b!tch.

yeah.. that's pretty ridiculous.
.......

And I guess the Legislature's power to enact legislation is dependant upon a categorical weighing of the particular legislations societal cost too right??

and the Executive's various orders are dependant upon a categorical weighing of societal cost...

and etc. and etc.

so... what do various rights and powers grant???

they grant the ability to be protected if they fall within what some random dude says is socially beneficial.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:07:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 8:47:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imma kill a b!tch.

I'm pretty sure death threats aren't protected under the first amendment. >_>
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:09:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:07:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 8:47:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imma kill a b!tch.

I'm pretty sure death threats aren't protected under the first amendment. >_>

But are sharp emotional interjections that can't really be taken seriously and are made by someone far away from the person "threatened?" I rather think so-- not a lawyer,but I'd expect it to be something like "engenders a reasonable fear of an attempt on one's life" to be a minimal criterion.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:12:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:09:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:07:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 8:47:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imma kill a b!tch.

I'm pretty sure death threats aren't protected under the first amendment. >_>

But are sharp emotional interjections that can't really be taken seriously and are made by someone far away from the person "threatened?" I rather think so-- not a lawyer,but I'd expect it to be something like "engenders a reasonable fear of an attempt on one's life" to be a minimal criterion.

Joke. Like, ha ha, that was funny.

In any case, my statement is half true, though not in context. You can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, for example, because the societal costs outweigh the value of said speech... so, yeah... what's the problem?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:15:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 8:44:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
--Elena Kagan, albeit undertaking her professional duties in arguing the administration's positions, which may or may not be her own.

I don't care that she was doing "professional duties"/getting paid to say such things...

putting forth such an argument (whether her job or not) is still attempting to thoroughly undermine the constitution...

IF the Govt. was paying her that just means she's a constitution corrupter for hire.

Either way... her insidious argument ought to prove her unfit for the office of interpreting/applying the meaning of the constitution.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:16:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:14:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
That is, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Forgot that. Whoops.

Movie theaters are privately owned. It doesn't count.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:19:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:14:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
That is, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Forgot that. Whoops.

Actually, you forgot the most important adverb in the entire statement: falsely.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:20:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:16:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:14:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
That is, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Forgot that. Whoops.

Movie theaters are privately owned. It doesn't count.

you also can't incite a riot.

or conspire to commit murder.

Both of which I think is ok.

but that's because the language is used as a means to some other Illegal ends.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:23:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:16:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:14:06 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
That is, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Forgot that. Whoops.

Movie theaters are privately owned. It doesn't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's to illustrate a point. Similarly, I'm sure, it would not be protected under the first amendment to knowingly and falsely shout "Bomb!" in a crowded public library with the intention to cause a panic.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:25:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:23:21 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Similarly, I'm sure, it would not be protected under the first amendment to knowingly and falsely shout "Bomb!" in a crowded public library with the intention to cause a panic.

And why would this not be protected? Because the societal costs outweigh the value of said speech. Again, I ask, what is so wrong about Kagan's comment?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:34:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Shouting bomb in a public library is fraud. there's nothing about societal costs and everything about offering an honest evaluation as someone's property and failing to deliver (If you have a reasonable expectation there's a bomb, it's not a problem). The notion that government gets to measure "societal cost" would have, among other things, outlawed the Federalist Papers-- or anything else the government wants to outlaw, since it ALWAYS thinks there's some sort of "societal cost" involved. It renders the First Amendment meaningless.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:34:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course, that should not be taken as an endorsement of taxing people to pay for libraries. ;)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:35:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:25:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:23:21 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Similarly, I'm sure, it would not be protected under the first amendment to knowingly and falsely shout "Bomb!" in a crowded public library with the intention to cause a panic.

And why would this not be protected? Because the societal costs outweigh the value of said speech. Again, I ask, what is so wrong about Kagan's comment?

It wasn't in the constitution that there were such squirmy limitations...

how bout the other powers/rights that that document grants???

power of the purse? legislation....

various exec. powers..

etc.

what differentiates them from the right/power of free speech????

I'd rather have it such that words cannot be used as a means to commit crimes... like one cannot incite violence, and cannot purposefully incite a riot....

And I'd rather have those prohibitions be strictly at the state level..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:43:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:34:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The notion that government gets to measure "societal cost" would have, among other things, outlawed the Federalist Papers-- or anything else the government wants to outlaw, since it ALWAYS thinks there's some sort of "societal cost" involved. It renders the First Amendment meaningless.

...so, it's a tough balance. Yeah, maybe the government sucks at weighing the two. That still doesn't negate the validity of Kegan's statement. Besides, the whole idea behind there being supreme court justices who serve indefinitely is that they're supposed to be as objective as possible.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:46:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:20:47 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you also can't incite a riot.

"Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to "incite to riot"? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: "Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!" and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. "Inciting to riot," therefore, is a pure exercise of a man's right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime." - Murray Rothbard[1]

[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:49:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:25:55 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Because the societal costs outweigh the value of said speech.

Who says? How do you presume to measure "societal costs"?

"Well you see, we just add all of the individual cost curves horizontally". lol.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:50:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Poejoe,

what differentiates the first amendment from other rights/powers granted in the constitution?

are all subject to such subjective Categorization of Societal benefit???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:52:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:46:50 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:20:47 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
you also can't incite a riot.

"Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to "incite to riot"? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: "Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!" and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. "Inciting to riot," therefore, is a pure exercise of a man's right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime." - Murray Rothbard[1]

[1] http://www.lewrockwell.com...

if you tell some dude to hit my child with a rock and he does killing her/him...

I want you both dead... and I'd be for the state helping to accomplish that.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:54:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:50:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Poejoe,

what differentiates the first amendment from other rights/powers granted in the constitution?

That's a loaded question. You stopped beating your wife yet?

are all subject to such subjective Categorization of Societal benefit???

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But I suppose so if a judge says.

Without a permit, you're not allowed to purchase a machine gun in California, even though the second amendment clearly permits us to bear arms... why is this? Because it's dangerous for society, according to a judge.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:54:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:52:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:46:50 PM, Reasoning wrote:
if you tell some dude to hit my child with a rock and he does killing her/him...

I want you both dead... and I'd be for the state helping to accomplish that.

"On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others – more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut – there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly to be charged simply with "incitement."" - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:56:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:43:14 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:34:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The notion that government gets to measure "societal cost" would have, among other things, outlawed the Federalist Papers-- or anything else the government wants to outlaw, since it ALWAYS thinks there's some sort of "societal cost" involved. It renders the First Amendment meaningless.

...so, it's a tough balance
Unlimited state power or not. Hmm, real tough.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:56:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The entire point of the judicial branch of government is to interpret the laws legislated by the legislative branch... fifth grade civics, dude.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:57:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:54:30 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:50:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Poejoe,

what differentiates the first amendment from other rights/powers granted in the constitution?

That's a loaded question.

How the hell is that a loaded question? What's the implication you disagree with?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:58:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:54:30 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:50:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Poejoe,

what differentiates the first amendment from other rights/powers granted in the constitution?

That's a loaded question. You stopped beating your wife yet?

are all subject to such subjective Categorization of Societal benefit???

I'm not a constitutional scholar. But I suppose so if a judge says.

Without a permit, you're not allowed to purchase a machine gun in California, even though the second amendment clearly permits us to bear arms... why is this? Because it's dangerous for society, according to a judge.

what if a judge decided that the allocation of foodstamps was legislation that was not Categorically Beneficial for society???

what if a judge decided that Black people voting was not Categorically beneficial for society???

what if a judge decided that your particular right to Habeus Corpus was not Categorically beneficial to society???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 9:59:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:57:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:54:30 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/2/2010 9:50:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Poejoe,

what differentiates the first amendment from other rights/powers granted in the constitution?

That's a loaded question.

How the hell is that a loaded question? What's the implication you disagree with?

yeah and what's with the "beating your wife" bit????
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2010 10:01:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/2/2010 9:58:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
what if a judge decided that the allocation of foodstamps was legislation that was not Categorically Beneficial for society???

It's not.

what if a judge decided that Black people voting was not Categorically beneficial for society???

It's not.

what if a judge decided that your particular right to Habeus Corpus was not Categorically beneficial to society???

Good point.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran