Two Interesting Cases From the 9th Circuit

heresolong · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms?

If you read the founding fathers you discover that they did not believe that the government should restrict the ownership of arms. So again, NO, a community standard would not apply because there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition on restrictions.

thewise1 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

If you read the founding fathers you discover that they did not believe that the government should restrict the ownership of arms. So again, NO, a community standard would not apply because there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition on restrictions.

In the law there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition on restrictions for speech as well.

Congress shall make no law... (later incorporated for states/local law as well)
...Shall not be infringed.

So no, a community standard that isn't written down and is really just some old guy who doesn't like a political opinion such as the one in the original article should not apply in some subjective manner. Objective law says otherwise.

Yes, justices have rules otherwise, but that doesn't make them right. The law specifically says otherwise in plain english.

Bear 45/70 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

thewise1 wrote:

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms?

Click to expand...

If you read the founding fathers you discover that they did not believe that the government should restrict the ownership of arms. So again, NO, a community standard would not apply because there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition on restrictions.

Someone forgot to tell SCOTUS, because they think reasonable restrictions are OK.

heresolong · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

. Can you not see the irony here? You're using a gun grabber's argument to justify limiting speech.

"It would be the wild west out there if we allowed people to own handguns and carry them openly!"
"It would be anarchy out there if we used your interpretation!"

Just because a gun grabber uses an argument does not make it a gun grabber argument. The gun grabbers are making a false argument when they claim that gun ownership will result in anarchy. There has been gun ownership throughout the history of this country without anarchy and therefore they are wrong.

I would also question the argument that anarchy is better than restrictions on the constitution. Although I don't agree with many of the restrictions on the constitution that we currently have, anyone who thinks that anarchy is better probably hasn't lived in an anarchic state.

BlaineG's point was that things that were never considered free speech such as "shit jesus" and Mapplethorpe's "art" have become free speech through the action of the courts. I disagree with those interpretations and that is exactly what they are. Someone else's interpretations. No more valid than my interpretations, except that mine are supported by history and the original documents. As a firm believer in Constitutional Originalism I don't see how political discourse, the stated objective of the First Amendment, is advanced or how democracy is strengthened because Robert Mapplethorpe gets public money to create his garbage.

thewise1 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Someone forgot to tell SCOTUS, because they think reasonable restrictions are OK.

Right - once again in clear violation, in fact outright flagrant spite toward, the phrase "shall not be infringed".

heresolong · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

thewise1 wrote:

You're right, that's my interpretation. Should a community standard apply to your right to keep and bear arms?

Click to expand...

If you read the founding fathers you discover that they did not believe that the government should restrict the ownership of arms. So again, NO, a community standard would not apply because there is a clear and unequivocal prohibition on restrictions.

Click to expand...

Someone forgot to tell SCOTUS, because they think reasonable restrictions are OK.

I know, I know! But the argument about a community standard that bans guns has also just been overturned by the same SCOTUS.

thewise1 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

Just because a gun grabber uses an argument does not make it a gun grabber argument. The gun grabbers are making a false argument when they claim that gun ownership will result in anarchy. There has been gun ownership throughout the history of this country without anarchy and therefore they are wrong.

I would also question the argument that anarchy is better than restrictions on the constitution. Although I don't agree with many of the restrictions on the constitution that we currently have, anyone who thinks that anarchy is better probably hasn't lived in an anarchic state.

BlaineG's point was that things that were never considered free speech such as "@#$% jesus" and Mapplethorpe's "art" have become free speech through the action of the courts. I disagree with those interpretations and that is exactly what they are. Someone else's interpretations. No more valid than my interpretations, except that mine are supported by history and the original documents. As a firm believer in Constitutional Originalism I don't see how political discourse, the stated objective of the First Amendment, is advanced or how democracy is strengthened because Robert Mapplethorpe gets public money to create his garbage.

I am not seeing any evidence to prove that having porn freely visible would cause anarchy, and clearly this guy with his van did not cause anarchy.

Bear 45/70 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

Just because a gun grabber uses an argument does not make it a gun grabber argument. The gun grabbers are making a false argument when they claim that gun ownership will result in anarchy. There has been gun ownership throughout the history of this country without anarchy and therefore they are wrong.

I would also question the argument that anarchy is better than restrictions on the constitution. Although I don't agree with many of the restrictions on the constitution that we currently have, anyone who thinks that anarchy is better probably hasn't lived in an anarchic state.

BlaineG's point was that things that were never considered free speech such as "@#$% jesus" and Mapplethorpe's "art" have become free speech through the action of the courts. I disagree with those interpretations and that is exactly what they are. Someone else's interpretations. No more valid than my interpretations, except that mine are supported by history and the original documents. As a firm believer in Constitutional Originalism I don't see how political discourse, the stated objective of the First Amendment, is advanced or how democracy is strengthened because Robert Mapplethorpe gets public money to create his garbage.

Click to expand...

I am not seeing any evidence to prove that having porn freely visible would cause anarchy, and clearly this guy with his van did not cause anarchy.

I would have to agree with you there. The old saw "If you go looking to be offended, you will be!"

heresolong · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote

clearly this guy with his van did not cause anarchy.

True. But why should my children not be able to walk down the streets of my town without being exposed to pornography and obscenities. I am not arguing that this guy was properly treated. He should not have been arrested and they were wrong to require him to paint over his van. However, when the argument veered into the elimination of community standards, are we to suppose that communities have no right to their own standards? Can I stand on a street corner naked across from the school shouting obscenities at all hours of the day and night? Can I spray paint my house with the word f&*k in twenty foot high letters where the kids who have to walk by my house every day to get to school are exposed to it? Would you want to live next door to the f&*k house and have to look at it each and every day while you tried to enjoy your nice house. I think that the point is that there are reasonable restrictions on any freedom. Always have been. Including firearms. I can't build a range in the backyard of my downtown Blaine house and shoot my M-14. I can't expose the neighbor children to obscenities and pornography. My town doesn't want either of those things. If you don't like the standards in one town I guess you could move to another. Lynden doesn't allow stores to be open on Sunday. Is that a Constitutional violation or a community standard that the townsfolk want.

I guess I don't understand the point of the argument here. Are you guys OK with those things going on? It seems like you are arguing for the elimination of all laws short of murder, rape, and theft. That would seem to be the logical end of the argument. I'm not saying that is what you want, so don't flame me for it, but at what point do you stop arguing that everything is a freedom and how do you justify your chosen stopping point.

thewise1 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

True. But why should my children not be able to walk down the streets of my town without being exposed to pornography and obscenities. I am not arguing that this guy was properly treated. He should not have been arrested and they were wrong to require him to paint over his van. However, when the argument veered into the elimination of community standards, are we to suppose that communities have no right to their own standards? Can I stand on a street corner naked across from the school shouting obscenities at all hours of the day and night? Can I spray paint my house with the word f&*k in twenty foot high letters where the kids who have to walk by my house every day to get to school are exposed to it? Would you want to live next door to the f&*k house and have to look at it each and every day while you tried to enjoy your nice house. I think that the point is that there are reasonable restrictions on any freedom. Always have been. Including firearms. I can't build a range in the backyard of my downtown Blaine house and shoot my M-14. I can't expose the neighbor children to obscenities and pornography. My town doesn't want either of those things. If you don't like the standards in one town I guess you could move to another. Lynden doesn't allow stores to be open on Sunday. Is that a Constitutional violation or a community standard that the townsfolk want.

I guess I don't understand the point of the argument here. Are you guys OK with those things going on? It seems like you are arguing for the elimination of all laws short of murder, rape, and theft. That would seem to be the logical end of the argument. I'm not saying that is what you want, so don't flame me for it, but at what point do you stop arguing that everything is a freedom and how do you justify your chosen stopping point.

I would argue for the elimination of all laws that do not protect a property right, actually. Property rights are the basis of all liberty, after all.

If you use property rights as the gauge for a law, you can solve all of the real problems here.

To touch on your first comment: "But why should my children not be able to walk down the streets of my town without being exposed to pornography and obscenities."

Perhaps you should be a good enough parent to teach them to not glorify that pornography or obscenity. The argument you're making is that it will be a bad influence on your children, yet it's your job to ensure that they are not affected by it - because whether it's plastered all over the streets of your town or not, realistically, they WILL be exposed to it in secret instead of openly.

Now mind you sir, I'm not at all claiming you're not a good parent by the above statement; it's a general statement, nothing more, nothing less.

Bear 45/70 · Oct 2, 2008

imported post

heresolong wrote:

thewise1 wrote

clearly this guy with his van did not cause anarchy.

Click to expand...

True. But why should my children not be able to walk down the streets of my town without being exposed to pornography and obscenities. I am not arguing that this guy was properly treated. He should not have been arrested and they were wrong to require him to paint over his van. However, when the argument veered into the elimination of community standards, are we to suppose that communities have no right to their own standards? Can I stand on a street corner naked across from the school shouting obscenities at all hours of the day and night? Can I spray paint my house with the word f&*k in twenty foot high letters where the kids who have to walk by my house every day to get to school are exposed to it? Would you want to live next door to the f&*k house and have to look at it each and every day while you tried to enjoy your nice house. I think that the point is that there are reasonable restrictions on any freedom. Always have been. Including firearms. I can't build a range in the backyard of my downtown Blaine house and shoot my M-14. I can't expose the neighbor children to obscenities and pornography. My town doesn't want either of those things. If you don't like the standards in one town I guess you could move to another. Lynden doesn't allow stores to be open on Sunday. Is that a Constitutional violation or a community standard that the townsfolk want.

I guess I don't understand the point of the argument here. Are you guys OK with those things going on? It seems like you are arguing for the elimination of all laws short of murder, rape, and theft. That would seem to be the logical end of the argument. I'm not saying that is what you want, so don't flame me for it, but at what point do you stop arguing that everything is a freedom and how do you justify your chosen stopping point.

When you start restricting others rights to protect your own rights, it is a very slippery slope and only leads to nobody having any rights, except for a few "leaders" who now tell everyone one what they can and can't do or think.

BlaineG · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

heresolong wrote:

thewise1 wrote

clearly this guy with his van did not cause anarchy.

Click to expand...

True. But why should my children not be able to walk down the streets of my town without being exposed to pornography and obscenities. I am not arguing that this guy was properly treated. He should not have been arrested and they were wrong to require him to paint over his van. However, when the argument veered into the elimination of community standards, are we to suppose that communities have no right to their own standards? Can I stand on a street corner naked across from the school shouting obscenities at all hours of the day and night? Can I spray paint my house with the word f&*k in twenty foot high letters where the kids who have to walk by my house every day to get to school are exposed to it? Would you want to live next door to the f&*k house and have to look at it each and every day while you tried to enjoy your nice house. I think that the point is that there are reasonable restrictions on any freedom. Always have been. Including firearms. I can't build a range in the backyard of my downtown Blaine house and shoot my M-14. I can't expose the neighbor children to obscenities and pornography. My town doesn't want either of those things. If you don't like the standards in one town I guess you could move to another. Lynden doesn't allow stores to be open on Sunday. Is that a Constitutional violation or a community standard that the townsfolk want.

I guess I don't understand the point of the argument here. Are you guys OK with those things going on? It seems like you are arguing for the elimination of all laws short of murder, rape, and theft. That would seem to be the logical end of the argument. I'm not saying that is what you want, so don't flame me for it, but at what point do you stop arguing that everything is a freedom and how do you justify your chosen stopping point.

Click to expand...

When you start restricting others rights to protect your own rights, it is a very slippery slope and only leads to nobody having any rights, except for a few "leaders" who now tell everyone one what they can and can't do or think.

Fighting words and disorderly conduct have always been well established in local law......You may not cause a ruckus legally. If you can, I should be able "free speech" that person in the nose:dude:

thewise1 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

Fighting words and disorderly conduct have always been well established in local law......You may not cause a ruckus legally. If you can, I should be able "free speech" that person in the nose:dude:

I'm pretty certain that punching someone in the face is not considered speech by most definitions of the word.

BlaineG · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

BlaineG wrote:

Fighting words and disorderly conduct have always been well established in local law......You may not cause a ruckus legally. If you can, I should be able "free speech" that person in the nose:dude:

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that punching someone in the face is not considered speech by most definitions of the word.

It depends on the provocation........ Defending yourself from fighting words and disorderly conduct, if you will........Though, in PC Western Washington, it probably would not fly.......Now, east of the Mtns, and I know some LEOs there, you would not be treated like the free speech spirit you envision:lol:

thewise1 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

BlaineG wrote:

It depends on the provocation........ Defending yourself from fighting words and disorderly conduct, if you will........Though, in PC Western Washington, it probably would not fly.......Now, east of the Mtns, and I know some LEOs there, you would not be treated like the free speech spirit you envision:lol:

When it escalates from words to physical violence it's not speech and no one here has argued that it would be.

BlaineG · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

thewise1 wrote:

BlaineG wrote:

It depends on the provocation........ Defending yourself from fighting words and disorderly conduct, if you will........Though, in PC Western Washington, it probably would not fly.......Now, east of the Mtns, and I know some LEOs there, you would not be treated like the free speech spirit you envision:lol:

Click to expand...

When it escalates from words to physical violence it's not speech and no one here has argued that it would be.

I'm not saying it right: If it were determined that the speech was provocitive enough to elicit physical violence, perhaps speech is not free all the time. I suspect that we shall have to disagree on this one. If society deems certain actions or speech inflammatory or too obscene or provocative, I feel it should be allowed to limit that speech, ie.: yelling fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, if that printed message were TBD to be meeting that standard, it should be limited.If you desire to hollar "F**K" very loudly in a crowededMcDonalds, should everyone look the other way, or would you/should you be asked to quiet it down or leave? And if you continued to yell "F**K", do you think you should be compelled to leave, either by force, or arrest? Anyway, this is good stuff and shows how good people can see something in two completely different ways.

thewise1 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

BlaineG wrote

I'm not saying it right: If it were determined that the speech was provocitive enough to elicit physical violence, perhaps speech is not free all the time. I suspect that we shall have to disagree on this one. If society deems certain actions or speech inflammatory or too obscene or provocative, I feel it should be allowed to limit that speech, ie.: yelling fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, if that printed message were TBD to be meeting that standard, it should be limited.If you desire to hollar "F**K" very loudly in a crowededMcDonalds, should everyone look the other way, or would you/should you be asked to quiet it down or leave? And if you continued to yell "F**K", do you think you should be compelled to leave, either by force, or arrest? Anyway, this is good stuff and shows how good people can see something in two completely different ways.

I'm not arguing with you on this, although I tend to disagree. That's neither here nor there, however, because here's my argument.

You feel that society should be allowed to limit certain speech. It's very likely that you could probably come up with a hypothetical situation where I grudgingly agree, but that's not relevant.

Objective law states that 'Congress shall make no law...'. Not 'Congress shall make no law, except in cases where society deems something unacceptable,...'.

I am arguing that these piecemeal subjective limitations on the law are wrong, wrong, wrong. Just like it's wrong to subjectively limit the ability to own firearms with 'reasonable regulation' because the Second Amendment states "...shall not be infringed.", this is also wrong.

If you disagree, the answer is to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Bill of Rights. The process is in place, and works perfectly. Instead we've used the judicial bench to infringe on right after right because folks like yourself - and probably me at some points my life as well - say "yeah they shouldn't be able to do that in my opinion".

Law should not be opinion. Don't get me wrong - if the law is wrong, change it. The problem is, no one would dare try to change one of the first 10 Amendments because the people of this country don't want that. The outcry would be deafening. So instead, the people of this country take the backdoor route and just judge away our rights.

Objective law exists for a reason. The idea is that our standards, preferences, and desires are all different, but the law provides a common standard. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then shouldn't it be followed in its entirety?

If you answered 'yes', then I urge you to consider the fact that the restrictions you support directly violate the plain English of the Bill of Rights.

PT111 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

If you are yelling profanities in a McDonalds the manager has every right to tell you to cool it or leave. If you do not then he can have you arrested. In fact McDonlads can tell you to shut up and not speak at all or leave. Nither of these two cases violate the First Amendment.

However the government cannot pass a law that says you cannot speak or yell profanities in a McDonalds. As was stated earlier that Congress shall make no law limiting speech. Hpwever it can make a law against trespassing or dirturbing the peace which that would be.

In any case I do not have the right to shoot you or hit you for anything you say. There is no law thatallows physical violence caused by verbal abuse.

Bear 45/70 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

PT111 wrote:

If you are yelling profanities in a McDonalds the manager has every right to tell you to cool it or leave. If you do not then he can have you arrested. In fact McDonlads can tell you to shut up and not speak at all or leave. Nither of these two cases violate the First Amendment.

However the government cannot pass a law that says you cannot speak or yell profanities in a McDonalds. As was stated earlier that Congress shall make no law limiting speech. Hpwever it can make a law against trespassing or dirturbing the peace which that would be.

In any case I do not have the right to shoot you or hit you for anything you say. There is no law thatallows physical violence caused by verbal abuse.

Not arrested. Trespassed and required to leave. Then if you don't leave the copscan arrest you for trespass only. It is a property rights issue only.

heresolong · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

delete post

Two Interesting Cases From the 9th Circuit

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member