wmw999 2,122 #26 December 6, 2004 I'm afraid first amendment protection is only worth something if it applies to everyone equally, even those we find detestable. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #27 December 6, 2004 QuoteFor instance, if someone has information about the government or some corporation doing something illegal, their identity should be protected under the "whistleblower" statutes. Well, if you can't see the difference between the right of freespeech and whistleblowing protection, then I'm not going to continue with the conversation, since it would be pointless.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #28 December 6, 2004 Yep, you got me there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #29 December 6, 2004 >but should it apply to group which incites hatered and promotes >violence time and time again. If a group intentionally incites riots, then arrest the lot of them. Until they do, then they are afforded the same protections as everyone else. >Would you still apply it to protect a group of lets say men marching with > green or white hoods, black pants and headband bearing the inscription >“ Jerusalem Battalions” in Arabic. Yeah they're marching expressing their >first amendment rights, but the 'Jeruslaem Battalions' are very closely >linked to violence . . . Yes. In exactly the same way we would allow a group of militant christians to march down the street with crucifixes singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and praising the Crusades. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #30 December 7, 2004 QuoteI do NOT agree that they should be allowed to assemble, en mass, wearing hoods and the Supreme Court also holds this position. The reason is, I would think, obvious. I preface this by saying I don't suporti in any way anything the KKK stands for, HOWEVER, it is not apparent to me why they should have the freedome to wear what they please when they want. How is it different from a masquerade ball?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #31 December 7, 2004 I would have to agree with Quade - Allowing masked protest would be foolhardy. Nothing about freedom of speech - just public disorder and riot control. Yes - you could argue that they are innocent til they start a public dissorder offence.... but there has to be a common sense line to prevent riots. Would it be ok to allow a group to carry petrol bombs until they crossed the line and threw one? after all they may just be wanting to fill their cars right? If you want to wear a mask - fine. If you want to demonstate with a large group with a potential to riot - mask wearing is not so good. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #32 December 7, 2004 Quote Nothing about freedom of speech - just public disorder and riot control. .... but there has to be a common sense line to prevent riots. Would it be ok to allow a group to carry petrol bombs until they crossed the line and threw one? after all they may just be wanting to fill their cars right? There is nothing in concealing one's identity when making a statement with very likely repurcussions that equates to public disorder or a riot let alone has anything to do with common sense. Would you preclude writers from adopting a false name to conceal their families from retaliation? The last time I checked a mask could not conceal a bomb. The more likely cause of a riot is persons upset by the unpopular at best message being proffered and that message is protected by free speech. Where is the line between a demonstration, a parade, a peaceful protest and a gathering? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #33 December 7, 2004 The supreme court doesn't officially hold any position at all on this matter. They declined to hear the case, and therefore, are issuing no opinion or ruling whatsoever. They did not uphold or overturn the lower court's decision. They simply declined to hear the case, period. The plaintiff petitioned the supreme court for a writ of certiorari, which, if granted, means the court will hear the case. The petition was denied. The court receives thousands of petitions for writs of certiorari per year, and only grants a very small percentage of them. Denying a petition for a writ of certiorari simply leaves the lower court's decision unaffected. However, it doesn't necessiarily mean that the supreme court agrees with the lower court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #34 December 7, 2004 A writer going under a pseudonym is a bit different. The actions of a large group of people should be policed differently to the actions of individuals.... especially in the prevention of conflict. Steps should be taken when prudent to reduce the potential for serious situations. This is the same in any situation for any group of people. Yes - this is restrictive, but so is nearly any preventative measure against potential crime.... Is it an afront to my freedom that I am not trusted on a plane without being searched? Or that I am asked to show my passport and not hide my face? Identity is required in certain situations where law needs to be upheld. I think this is one of them. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #35 December 7, 2004 QuoteA writer going under a pseudonym is a bit different. How?? QuoteYes - this is restrictive, but so is nearly any preventative measure against potential crime.... The problem is you presume that there will be criminal activity if people are permitted to gather. QuoteIs it an afront to my freedom that I am not trusted on a plane without being searched? Or that I am asked to show my passport and not hide my face? In the US, you have no right to travel by airplane or enter any country. You do have a right to assemble with whomever you want and say what you want with rather few limitations. Why not just make the KKK publish a list of their members? Isn't that effectively what is happening? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #36 December 7, 2004 QuoteWell, if you can't see the difference between the right of freespeech and whistleblowing protection, then I'm not going to continue with the conversation, since it would be pointless. Perfect point. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #37 December 7, 2004 QuoteA writer going under a pseudonym is a bit different. How?? Becuase as a mob crimes can be commited with total annonymity - I cant beleive you really cant see the difference. Quote The problem is you presume that there will be criminal activity if people are permitted to gather. No, however the likelyhood is greater - that coupled with historic abusive actions and the annonymity cause a certain need for caution. QuoteWhy not just make the KKK publish a list of their members? Isn't that effectively what is happening? Becuase they could still hide behind the mask and say 'It wasnt me that did it - must have been another member' Some freedoms need to be sacrificed in order to maintain a peaceful society - and I really dont see why an issue like this one is too contentious. I could argue it is less risky to allow people to wander the streets nude - why is that a problem?! It is about balancing the lost freedom against the benefit of the control measure.... and if I were judging this one the scales would be easily tipped. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #38 December 7, 2004 QuoteBecuase as a mob crimes can be commited with total annonymity - I cant beleive you really cant see the difference. I believe in the right of free association and assembly. Mob crimes can be committed with total anonymity without a mask, but I don't hear people saying protestors shouldn't march on Washington or the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened. The difference is content. Quotehistoric abusive actions and the annonymity cause a certain need for caution. You mean lynchings decades ago? QuoteBecuase they could still hide behind the mask and say 'It wasnt me that did it - must have been another member' You are missing the point. You are deciding that the content of their message should be stiffled by a disclosure of the actual people making it. Was it fine for Christians or Jews to be persecuted for their beliefs? Can you persecute someone if you do not know who they are? QuoteSome freedoms need to be sacrificed in order to maintain a peaceful society - and I really dont see why an issue like this one is too contentious. Fortunately, the founding fathers disagreed. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #39 December 7, 2004 QuoteSteps should be taken when prudent to reduce the potential for serious situations. YEah, I propose there be no allowance for assemblies of large groups of people. Keep it down to a managable number....say 10. Of course that kinda ruins the 16 way competition at nationals.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #40 December 7, 2004 QuoteBecuase they could still hide behind the mask and say 'It wasnt me that did it - must have been another member' What if it were a rally for battered women, only many of the women were embararesed about being battered and wished to conceal their identities with masks? How would you vote then?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 December 7, 2004 It will all be moot when the RFID chips are implanted at birth. Quit worrying about the slippery slope, we're already 3/4 of the way down it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #42 December 7, 2004 Quote It will all be moot when the RFID chips are implanted at birth. Quit worrying about the slippery slope, we're already 3/4 of the way down it. For once, I agree wholeheartedly. Civil liberties in this country are, while better than anywhere else in the world, a joke. The Founders must be spinning in their graves. It has been this way for a long time, and we, The People, have only ourselves to blame.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #43 December 7, 2004 QuoteThe People, have only ourselves to blame. For those that know history, they'll know that the slide down this slipperly slope was really kicked into high gear while Abe Lincoln was in office. If you don't know about this, brush up on your history outside of the glossy grade-school version. Very scary things were done to civil liberties during his "reign."--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #44 December 7, 2004 As much as I hate the KKK, I have to agree with them on this. In their desire to harm the klan, they have set up a mechanism that harms far more and leaves those with a legitimate need to protect their identity without a legal means to do so. Bad call SCOTUS.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #45 December 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe People, have only ourselves to blame. For those that know history, they'll know that the slide down this slipperly slope was really kicked into high gear while Abe Lincoln was in office. If you don't know about this, brush up on your history outside of the glossy grade-school version. Very scary things were done to civil liberties during his "reign." Yes, I am well aware of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc. My comments about "The People" are not limited to "The People" of today, and it certainly wasn't a shot at W, if that is what you are thinking I meant.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #46 December 7, 2004 Quoteit certainly wasn't a shot at W, if that is what you are thinking I meant. Not at all. I was trying to get people to think and realize that this is NOT a new problem and its a constant fight against the government to keep our rights. Its the nature of government to remove rights and its up to the people to continuously fight so that we may keep them and our grandchildren's grandchildren will have the same rights.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #47 December 7, 2004 I quite agree with the sentment that they SHOULD be allowed to do this - however the practicality of the situation means its safer if they are not allowed to. We have seen the same things in northern ireland where marches have been stopped. Lets take another masked group erm... Insurgent Muslims? Lets say you have a large group of them in the US that wants to protest against Iraq occupation - should they be allowed to march on the whitehouse wearing balaclavas? Probably should morally.... should they be allowed? For safety and prevention of a definite riot! probably not. As for the forefathers and freedom - not everything is free like I said.... I cant walk through the mall in the buff. (not that I'd want to) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #48 December 7, 2004 Quoteits safer if they are not allowed to. How is it a group of people wearing hoods not safe? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #49 December 7, 2004 Think ive explained enough to get the point across. Join the dots.... then I'll come back later and teach you how to suck some eggs. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #50 December 7, 2004 QuoteYa got me there Ron. I must be a real asshole for thinking the KKK is a bad thing Yeah, I got you on a double standard. You don't like the KKK? OK, I don't like them either. However I respect the groups right to assemble in peace and wear what they want while they do it. You want to hold the group to a different standard due to a related groups past. You see I unlike you beleive in the constitution, you only belive in it when it suits you. If you support the group they can do what they want, however if you don't like the group you support them having their rights taken away. I look at this group not as the KKK, but a bunch of folks that want to use their right to free speach. Your hatred of them makes it so its OK for you to deny them the same rights you support for others. Thats a double standard. The KKK is a bunch of Morons in my opinion. HOWEVER, I support anyone right to free speach. You clearly don't. So whats next? Are you going to make them get tatoos on their foreheads so we can see if they incite a riot at a mall?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
