Andy9o8

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution. In this case, freedom of screech. "Sometimes" is not "always" or even "mostly" or "frequently". No doubt. IMPO, though, in the US, a court order that had the practical effect of prohibiting a person from vocalizing loudly during sex, and especially one that imposed not just criminal sanctions, but actual incarceration, for doing so, would not survive appellate court review.

Apparently one can. Neither the D license requirements, nor the C license aerial performance requirements (the D license requirements expressly incorporate all of the C license requirements) require classic freefly skills, such as back-fly, sit-fly, head-down or transition to and/or from any of those orientations. D license C license

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution. In this case, freedom of screech.

The myth that America (except for a few dinosaurs) doesn't like soccer-football

Whooa...careful counselor, you're dancing on the margins with that race card again. Life is one big race. Here's my card.

Hi. I didn't feel like starting a new thread about Clarence Thomas, who, as you well know, I revile. So. One more example of how Clarence Thomas is a fucking pig. Supreme Court backs Muslim woman denied job over head scarf An 8 to 1 decision. Guess who was the 1? Oink.

Apparently The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Hey! Here's a great example of verbal expression that apparently can get a person jailed in the UK that I doubt would be unlawful in the US: Woman in Birmingham [UK] jailed after making 'loud sex noises'

It's incredible the shit you seem to find. Do you subscribe to a newsletter?

Fuck em! Mmm.. that would be me.

http://i.imgur.com/LTrioOQ.jpg

Kissy kissy.

Well, even context has context. History recalls that when the feds finally nailed the brutal, homicidal Al Capone, it was for income tax evasion. I don't think it recalls anyone being shocked, shocked at the scurrilous abuse of revenue regulations. So using banking laws to nail a justice-escaped statutory rapist doesn't exactly rent the fabric of the republic, either.

Yeah. I'm sure that's what he meant. Quite a spin of his post, and of mine. Through the looking glass, Alice?

I'm not sure they would see it that way in their minds. I'm fairly certain they're celebrating they've been able to be complete assholes without any repercussions. This might embolden them to commit further acts until we end up with our own version of Kristallnacht. Those people are the moral equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church and their vile protests. But also the legal equivalent. Who cares whether they deem themselves to have won or list?. From society's standpoint, if they fail to have effect, they lose.

You've clearly graduated from the rushmc seminar on analogies. Bravo.

It's good to see that the usual blatant racism is joined by blatant disparagement of LGBT in speakers corner. Good for you! Now stay away from my children. Were you drunk posting?

What's in their water is a celibacy requirement that's proven time and again to attract a high proportion of social misfits and psychological oddballs. It's the 900 pound gorilla in their room, and until they acknowledge and get a grip on that, this shit will continue to happen.

Apparently the feds have been investigating Hastert's withdrawals. Maybe they should investigate his insertions, too.

Then explain this: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-motorcycle-lanesplitting-20150528-story.html Point awarded to the goose.

Seeds like that don't grow in the absence of rich soil within which to find purchase in the first place. Isn't that what David Duke said about hatin' the blacks? IF there wasn't so much to hate then they wouldn't be hated. Look at the fertile Jew hatin' ground that was set up for time immemorial. It's far easier to be the enabler that foments hate and blame. That's why you see folks out there who focus on bringing down someone else or something else. Chavez did what they brought him in to do: take down the wealthy and industry. Turns out they forgot that bringing others down doesn't bring them up. Helping people is hard. So make people think you are helping them by hurting others is where it goes. Feed anger and use it. What I meant by my brief comment was more along the lines of: revolutionary movements ("seeds") tend to gain traction (and sometimes overthrow the government, other times fail to do so before they're crushed) most often in countries where economic or social/legal conditions are extremely deleterious to the vast majority of the population ("the soil") whose support the revolutionary leaders hope to gain. Examples: Czarist Russia, 1940s China, 1950s Cuba, 1970s Iran, the recent "Arab Spring" countries, etc. That's why the "Western democracies" really don't have to worry much about being overthrown by the sundry revolutionary movements that, from time to time, either spring up domestically or that infiltrate from abroad: they have a numerically-vast middle class, which is generally more content than not, and generally feels fairly enfranchised in government, law, society and the economy - and in the absence of really extreme provocation, that middle class is unlikely to ally itself with the revolutionaries.

So Sepp Blatter has just been re-elected. I'm not sure if that's awful or good. The awful is obvious, of course. The good might be that it will surely be perceived so widely as being so awful, that it keeps FIFA in the spotlight of scrutiny, rather than just allowing it to lay low until the heat dies down.

Soooo, if the fed still does executions, you think that the entire country and its leaders are not part of the civilized world? Does it feel good to be listed along with Yemen, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan as states that kill their own citizens? Yes, in some cases, absolutely. Organized civilization, as contrasted with individual action, often means not acting out that which feels good.

Here's the short answer: Generally speaking, there really is no one, over-reaching, formal definition of hate speech under US federal civil or criminal law. Even though many other countries do outlaw or restrict hate speech, the general rule in the United States is the opposite: the First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally (with a few exceptions) guarantees people the right to engage in just about any kind of speech, including "hate speech". Re: provocation - sometimes the law allows a person to escape civil or criminal liability for, say, punching a person in the nose in response to so-called "fighting words", i.e., extremely offensive personal insults - but the more modern trend is that the "fighting words" defense usually fails. Another example of prohibited provocation under US law would be laws that prohibit "incitement to riot". But as a practical matter, the modern trend is that convictions under that law are very difficult to obtain.

Stop & identify statutes were upheld by a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court. The 5 most conservative justices votes to uphold them, and the other 4 voted to strike them down. Of course, Justices are appointed by the President. So for those who wonder whether who the President is really makes any difference in people's daily lives, and/or are very centrist/moderate in ideology, things like this should stay in their minds when walking into the voting booth.