Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Fl.4 DCA cautions agains injunctions restricting First and Second Amendment rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    Fl.4 DCA cautions agains injunctions restricting First and Second Amendment rights

    ‘We once again caution trial courts to be hesitant with respect to granting injunctions that restrict protected First Amendment speech’. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses yet another stop-talking-about-the-plaintiff injunction (and, in the process, the ban on gun possession that often goes along with such anti-"harassment" orders)[my emphasis].

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ndment-speech/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Dixie county, florida
    Posts
    27
    Interesting,

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Good to see the courts giving some consideration to the constitutional rights of the accused/defendant. I do wish considerations of RKBA were stated explicitly.

    Of course, I also wish that a protective order not to contact one person didn't automatically strip a man (usually it is a man) of his RKBA 24/7 for months on end. It is one thing, perhaps, to tell a man to stay away from the ex-wife, her home, office, and gym. It is quite another to strip him of a fundamental right when he has never violated an order to stay away from the ex or her haunts.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Good to see the courts giving some consideration to the constitutional rights of the accused/defendant. I do wish considerations of RKBA were stated explicitly.

    Of course, I also wish that a protective order not to contact one person didn't automatically strip a man (usually it is a man) of his RKBA 24/7 for months on end. It is one thing, perhaps, to tell a man to stay away from the ex-wife, her home, office, and gym. It is quite another to strip him of a fundamental right when he has never violated an order to stay away from the ex or her haunts.

    Charles
    if he can't be trusted with a gun, an order on a piece of paper isn't going to stop him. so why not just take it a step further and lock him up?




    [/sarcasm]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    if he can't be trusted with a gun, an order on a piece of paper isn't going to stop him. so why not just take it a step further and lock him up?

    [/sarcasm]

    Not much need for sarcasm. To a first level for sure, if a man can't be trusted to exercise his rights, he can't be trusted to walk the streets unsupervised. If he is trusted to walk the streets unsupervised, his rights better be respected.

    That said, in some cases I can understand formally telling a guy, "You may not contact your ex, you may not show up at the following locations where you ex does her thing. If you do so after we've told you not to, you are going to go to jail whether you actually hurt the ex or not. And if your ex shoots you while you are violating this order, we're going to assume you deserved it." without actually locking him up...unless he actually violates the order. If the violates the order and the ex doesn't shoot him, then lock him up.

    But protective orders are way overused, and their secondary effects like stripping RKBA are far too expansive for the low evidentiary and due process currently required to get the orders.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •