Um... Drunkin - you do know that "First Amendment rights" only applies to government censorship, right? The First Amendment doesn't mean that you can say anything you want with no repercussions - only that the government can't criminalize your speech, within certain limitations - like your speech endangering others, or being obscene. If you blab your employer's internal documents and get caught, you can't claim the First Amendment allows you to and so not get fired. If you post a girl's naked photos on Main Street, "First Amendment rights" won't keep her brother from punching you in the nose. Now getting your throat slit is illegal, so your next-of-kin may have some recourse if the evil Muslims come for you in the dark of night. However, you may want to mention to your defendors that they probably shouldn't spend *too* much time yammering about a violation of your "First Amendment rights".
eric (844)
3 SFW Posts |
108 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2007-07-20 15:46:31 Comment Karma: 5 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from eric
- Comment on "Ground Zero" Mosque: Rhetoric vs. Reality (2010-08-15 15:01:41)
Um... Drunkin - you do know that "First Amendment rights" only applies to government censorship, right? The First Amendment doesn't mean that you can say anything you want with no repercussions - only that the government can't criminalize your speech, within certain limitations - like your speech endangering others, or being obscene. If you blab your employer's internal documents and get caught, you can't claim the First Amendment allows you to and so not get fired. If you post a girl's naked photos on Main Street, "First Amendment rights" won't keep her brother from punching you in the nose. Now getting your throat slit is illegal, so your next-of-kin may have some recourse if the evil Muslims come for you in the dark of night. However, you may want to mention to your defendors that they probably shouldn't spend *too* much time yammering about a violation of your "First Amendment rights". - Comment on I AM having cheezburger! (2010-07-29 18:58:57)
... "We managed to recover two of your fingers and a bracelet, but your cheezburger had already been digested"... - Comment on The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense (2010-07-27 13:44:04)
Well, reaching "Human-level Artificial Intelligence" pretty much depends on the human you pick, right? Lots of humans I know aren't nearly as clever as the average labrador. - Comment on carrot cat (2010-06-07 18:01:01)
Catchin' bunnys the old-fashioned way... - Comment on Kristin Chenoweth (2009-07-14 10:55:41)
Gorgeous girl. Lovely singing voice too. - Comment on Beware of God on Fence (2009-07-01 08:47:13)
Was the sign nailed to the fence? Because Thor has a hammer... 8) - Comment on fishnet sniper (2008-07-12 15:56:56)
Realistically, if you're gonna get killed anyway, wouldn't you really rather be murdered by a beautiful girl dressed only in fishnet? - Comment on ACLU Illegal Wire tapping complaint Advert (2008-07-11 10:31:00)
@beep beep - A whistleblower came forward, at which point the bulk siezure of the records came to light @co_alpine - Whose interests exactly are "protected" by scanning through everyone's phone and internet logs and compiling tracking data on the entire country? Perhaps you should be required to wear a tracking chip and have cameras installed in every room of your home "in case you're a terrorist"? You *do* have a cell phone you carry with you, right? *j_byron - Thanks, but I don't need the extra "targeted solicitations" aka "junk mail and spam" from when the government accidentally slips all my personal data to marketing firms. - Comment on USA Bill of Right (2008-04-09 15:30:45)
@RenegadeRick - Actually, I wasn't reading the amendment. I was reading the letters written at the time discussing the need for the amendment. Those expositions defending the amendment mostly were concerned with the need to have weapons in every hamlet and village, because it would take too long to reconstitue the military if everyone had to go to the state armory and then back to the front lines in event of war. @reboot - Nope. It wouldn't mean only professors could own books, as written. Nor would it forbid a law prohibiting citizens from owning books, as written. The amendment can be read to apply only to faculty, or it could be read to apply to everyone, requiring the Supreme Court to interprete it because it is unclear. Similarly, the second amendment either applies only to militia members (as it was debated at the time) or it applies to everyone (as has been pushed more recently). There are apperently limits on the amendment, as I, as a private citizen, am forbidden to own a weapon of mass destruction. When I was young, I could bring a pocket knife to school, but students can't now, even though students are basically 'people'. - Comment on USA Bill of Right (2008-04-09 14:22:15)
I'm with reboot - #9 protects the people and #10 limits the federal government. As far as #2 - if you're a member of the militia, then you get to keep and bear arms. Military and national guard, and I guess this is also cops. This was the amendment written in to allow the Revolutionary War soldiers to take their military issue firearms home with them so they could rejoin the army easily if the British returned amd defend the country. - Comment on Death of Superman (2008-04-02 09:07:06)
It is very American to get the copyright back. Under the laws of the time that they sold the copyright, it reverted back to them or their heirs after 56 years. All copyrights reverted back to the original creators - not just the Superman copyright. That got extended in 1976, with the provision that the original copyright holders or their heirs could challenge the extension in court, if the original copyright still had value. The sale of a copyright wasn't intended to be forever - the rights were sold for 28 or 56 years. Then the contract could be renegotiated. The idea that copyright transfer is permanent is a relatively new one, designed to favor wealthy investors over (poor) individual creators. All this applies only to US law, of course. YMMV - Comment on Hot Mermaid (2008-03-30 17:55:40)
Is the hot mermaid behind the fat girl or the boat? - Comment on Young McCain (2008-03-12 20:35:52)
@Gunface01 That looks like back when McCain was a party animal, while he was in the Naval Academy. He finished 5th in his class... from the bottom. As McCain himself has said, he only got in because his father was an admiral. - Comment on Male and Female Anonymous (2008-03-01 09:08:39)
Shouldn't Female Anonymous be showing her breasts? - Comment on Live Free or Vote Hard (2008-02-25 15:59:46)
@Mystik, Actually, I wasn't talking about the technicality of whether an actual war was declared. I'm talking about the mission. The "war" was to overthrow the government of Iraq, which was accomplished. America seized the country. At that point, it became an occupation: the installation of a temporary government and the pacification of the people. I agree - from the viewpoint of a soldier whose buddy just got crippled by an explosion, it seems like a war. However, we are an occupying force, not actually fighting the current government of Iraq. We're policing the citizenry and apparently defending against outside aggressors. My problem is, I don't know what winning means in an occupation. McCain mentioned staying for a hundred years, but then he comparied that to our current forces in Germany, which aren't being shot at. Mostly embassy guards and training and staging groups in Germany apparently. So how do we "win the war" and "not wave the white flag of surrender"? (Of course, if someone would post a photo of a lovely girl not wearing a shirt, I'd get distracted and never find my way back to this thread...)