Must Be The Rarified Air They Breath

[wombat2u2004]

By whos definition, though?
Who defines "public good"?

That's potentially scary territory. Japanese-Americans were taken from their homes in WWII and placed in camps ... for the public good. School children were segregated by the color of their skin ... for the public good.
More specific language in this law would be wonderful, don't get me wrong, and I most sincerely hope it is reinstituted.

Who defines "public good ???
Normal decent people do.
Do we have to have a referendum to change a Constitutional law that was originally written some 200-300 years ago ??? I think not. I'm sure the framers of that Constitution or Bill of Rights that you refer to, never intended that your Freedom of Speech would include videos of animal cruelty.
Your Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times we live in, as ours is here in Australia. I'm sure a lot of people in your country would support that.....after all...the rest of the world recognises that your Freedom of Speech has run amok, and no longer supports the ideals of normal decent people.

[Lady's Human]

Your Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times we live in, as ours is here in Australia. I'm sure a lot of people in your country would support that.....after all...the rest of the world recognises that your Freedom of Speech has run amok, and no longer supports the ideals of normal decent people.

No, hell no......

It's not open to interpretation. Want to change it? Amend it, the process is available.

That pesky fourth amendment is SO irritating at times, though...maybe we should hold that one open to interpretation?

[wombat2u2004]

No, hell no......

It's not open to interpretation. Want to change it? Amend it, the process is available.

That pesky fourth amendment is SO irritating at times, though...maybe we should hold that one open to interpretation?

Then you have a problem don't you ???
You have a system that condones animal abuse on Youtube ???
I could go on and on.....a movie star who wines and dines the enemy in Hanoi while your soldiers starve in a pit, a supermarket in Texas that posts a sign saying we're closed today in honour of a martyr who slammed in to the WTC. Gee LH...this is all getting to be pretty stoopid.
You know what your amendments need ??? A can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

[Puckstop31]

Then you have a problem don't you ???
You have a system that condones animal abuse on Youtube ???
I could go on and on.....a movie star who wines and dines the enemy in Hanoi while your soldiers starve in a pit, a supermarket in Texas that posts a sign saying we're closed today in honour of a martyr who slammed in to the WTC. Gee LH...this is all getting to be pretty stoopid.
You know what your amendments need ??? A can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

Wow.


You really don't understand the word liberty do you? Our liberties are supposed to be a two way street. How can you be truly free if you can be censored while not commiting a crime?


Like I said about the animal videos.... Write the law so that it is more specific, that it targets video of criminal activity.

The SCOTUS did not strike this law because they think video of animal cruelty is a good thing. They did it because the law leaves too much open to interpretation and thus could easily be misused.


Stop and think for a minute Wom.... Do you realize what you are saying? Do you understand that the US Bill of Rights is not a list of rights the government grants us? Rather it is a affirmation of God given Natural Law?

You could take a match to it all you want and it would still not take away that right. Government may not recognize the right, but all of humanity has them none the less.

[Puckstop31]

BTW, Wom....

The 4th Amendment states...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The "Patriot" Act already has pissed on this enough.

[Lady's Human]

Then you have a problem don't you ???
You have a system that condones animal abuse on Youtube ???
I could go on and on.....a movie star who wines and dines the enemy in Hanoi while your soldiers starve in a pit, a supermarket in Texas that posts a sign saying we're closed today in honour of a martyr who slammed in to the WTC. Gee LH...this is all getting to be pretty stoopid.
You know what your amendments need ??? A can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

Condones animal abuse? No, just doesn't allow an openly broad view of who is to be held accountable for animal abuse.

Hanoi Jane wasn't protected by the constitution, no one had the cojones to prosecute.

The grocery store in Texas is free to open and close as they wish, and post whatever signs they deem good in the windows...however they are also free to deal with the consequences.

[Twisterdog]

Who defines "public good ???
Normal decent people do.
Do we have to have a referendum to change a Constitutional law that was originally written some 200-300 years ago ??? I think not. I'm sure the framers of that Constitution or Bill of Rights that you refer to, never intended that your Freedom of Speech would include videos of animal cruelty.
Your Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the times we live in, as ours is here in Australia. I'm sure a lot of people in your country would support that.....after all...the rest of the world recognises that your Freedom of Speech has run amok, and no longer supports the ideals of normal decent people.

Wow. Seriously?

Because basic human rights were affirmed on paper 200+ years ago makes them obsolete? Really? Then those dusty old Ten Commandments must be utterly, laughable useless then ... Thou shalt not kill, etc ... let's rewrite, amend and change them to fit the times, make them modern, huh? Yikes.

A well thought out constitution doesn't have to change constantly with trends, that's the brilliance of it. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong.

And again ... who defines "normal" and "decent"? Are Catholics and Jews normal, decent folks? Not to some other religions. Are single mothers normal and decent? Not the some groups. How about homosexuals? Environmentalists? Minorities? Depends on who you are asking, doesn't it? Can you not see the simple truth ... you must apply justice to everyone equally, or it isn't justice at all.