61 comments posted · 22 followers · following 0
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.