IntenseDebate - OMG! Ponies!

13 years ago @ OMG! Ponies! - On The Jefferson Hoax · 0 replies · +1 points

And where does he say "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution"?

Like I said, and like you're unwilling to accept, the "Central Bank" quote, that big paragraph in bold up above that is quoted by cranks like you, is cobbled together from half of a quote by TJ, a full quote from somewhere else by TJ, and a quote from someone 100 years after TJ died.

For your future reference, Ctrl-F is the find feature. Using that feature, the phrase "Central Bank" does not appear.

Enjoy your tinfoil hat.

13 years ago @ OMG! Ponies! - On The Jefferson Hoax · 1 reply · +1 points

I'm ready for your apology any time you're ready.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - Our first public Crass... · 13 replies · +17 points

This is a bit of a surprise. Especially after I spent my entire lunch hour yesterday reading 100 pages of Supreme Court opinion for a post. Specifically, I culled through the Stevens and Snyder opinions, highlighting relevant portions of the majority opinion.

I was criticized for posting too much in one post.

As to why there was not much analysis in it, the point is that Roberts writes very straight-forward opinions on the First Amendment. It doesn't take much parsing of the language.

I'm a bit surprised by this and a bit let down as I had just written the Afternoon Numbers post (on my lunch break).

Since the public square seems to be the forum for this discussion, I'm a bit disappointed that none of you could send me an email. I know Joel has my email and I would have liked having some advance warning. See Point I.

In short, I don't know. Go screw? I'm sorry for writing an article about recent First Amendment rulings that some people seemed to like? Oh well. Please delete my account and all data associated with it (posts included.) If yall wanna reply to this you can. If not you don't need to.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - Where Are They Now? "F... · 1 reply · +3 points

I hate you both.

Even without having seen the show since before George W. Bush's second term, I now have the frakkin' theme song stuck in my head. Starting with the opening - bump.... ba dada-dada... ooo ooo ooh. bump.... ba dada-dada... ooo ooo ooh.

Whatever happened to predictability?
The milkman, the paper boy....
Even tee vee.

(A: The milkman banged Ms. Tanner and the paper boy huffs glue down the street)

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - In Defense Of The Firs... · 1 reply · +2 points

Exactly. Roberts walked a fine line, saying not that crush videos are good or have any worth but, rather, that the law intended to prohibit them was poorly drafted and overbroad. It's a reiteration of the long-held principle that restrictions on free speech should be narrowly tailored. As the law was written, there was too much power vested in the executive.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - In Defense Of The Firs... · 0 replies · +1 points

The point of the post was to pick out the relevant and interesting portions of the opinions. That said, the opinions themselves are not that long.

From a personal standpoint, I think philosophical issues like whether speech that willfully or wantonly causes emotional distress deserves more than five paragraphs. Many of Roberts' quotes in both opinions speak volumes to why even hateful or morally reprehensible speech is protected and, for all the pixels spilled over the Stevens (crush video) being such a terrible thing, I think that an open an honest look at exactly what the crush video and WBC opinions say is in order.

Sound bites are easy. And usually wrong.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - In Defense Of The Firs... · 4 replies · +1 points

That was one of the issues addressed in Snyder. Since the Snyder funeral, most States have passed laws banning picketing of funerals. Justice Roberts made specific mention of that only to say that those laws were not before the Court and the constitutionality of them was not decided by the Snyder opinion.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - Supreme Court Is Just ... · 0 replies · +2 points

CORRECTION: The crush video ruling, US v. Stevens, was in fact handed down on April 20, 2010. The 8-1 decision from March 2, 2011, is Snyder v. Phelps.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - Supreme Court Is Just ... · 1 reply · +2 points

As I understand it, the crush video legislation was so broad as to possibly encompass hunting and fishing videos. I haven't read either decision in full yet (that's my lunch reading... AND WRITING). Also, on the child porn front, child porn legislation has been tough to legislate in a constitutional manner over the past several decades. One Act that was struck down outlawed the depiction of minors in a lewd or lascivious manner - even if the "minor" depicted was in fact an adult.

Good intent does not trump bad law. I'm trying to find the crush ruling now. The Phelps decision is only 36 pages and from what I understand, is narrow in scope.

13 years ago @ Crasstalk - Supreme Court Is Just ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Again, on this, I side with the majority. Are the videos highly offensive? Of course. Should the makers and purchasers all die of horrible diseases? Of course. Do the maker of these videos still have the right to make and distribute these videos? Yes.

There is no constitutional protection against being offended. Personally, I find some solace in the fact that a court this conservative still rules in favor of a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment which encompasses a broad swath of speech that is, in fact, patently offensive.

If horrible speech such as the WBC and this is protected, then YOUR SPEECH is protected.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with OMG! Ponies!

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

OMG! Ponies!