Supreme Court hears "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

06/26/2007 02:06:57 PM · #76

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Seems like they somewhat contradicted themselves in another ruling the same day ... oh yeah, that ruling was in favor of corporations ...

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., in a ruling that relaxed restrictions on pre-election television ads.

Hypocrites.

:-(

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2007 02:10:15 PM · #77

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Seems like they somewhat contradicted themselves in another ruling the same day ... oh yeah, that ruling was in favor of corporations ...

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the MONEY, not the censor."
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., in a ruling that relaxed restrictions on pre-election television ads.

I put in bold what the quote really means...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2007 02:13:34 PM · #78

Ah, yes, thanks for the clarification.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/26/2007 02:14:59 PM · #79

:-P

Thank you GeneralE for putting up that quote!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/26/2007 02:18:02 PM · #80

NY Times Editorial (may require free registration).

If the link doesn't work I'll just copy the text ...

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/26/2007 02:20:24 PM · #81

i think bear_music made some fair points regarding protest. Despite the rather "circumscript" and "factually specific" nature of this ruling, it does chip away at freedom of speech for US citizens. Rights erode gradually because if they were to disappear completely all at once, everyone would notice. But these small erosions are hard to notice when distracted by Paris Hilton being released from jail.

06/26/2007 02:25:24 PM · #82

Originally posted by frisca:

Very Sad but true. We have no time for the Bill of Rights but for Paris we have 10 TV stations clogging the airwaves.

06/26/2007 02:26:57 PM · #83

Love this:

"It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the courtâ��s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics."

NOT!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/26/2007 02:30:08 PM · #84

Originally posted by GeneralE:

NY Times Editorial (may require free registration).

Shoot that editorial just pissed me off even more.

*Starts banging head against the wall*

frisca

Nikon D70

06/26/2007 03:06:00 PM · #85

me too. But I console myself that i live in a different country and its not my Supreme Court doing this. (but they have their own problems..)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/26/2007 04:28:49 PM · #86

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Seems like they somewhat contradicted themselves in another ruling the same day ... oh yeah, that ruling was in favor of corporations ...

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., in a ruling that relaxed restrictions on pre-election television ads.

Hypocrites.

:-(

Are you saying freedom of speech and the First Amendment was strengthen by this verdict where as in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus it was seriously harmed?

06/26/2007 04:42:22 PM · #87

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Seems like they somewhat contradicted themselves in another ruling the same day ... oh yeah, that ruling was in favor of corporations ...

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., in a ruling that relaxed restrictions on pre-election television ads.

Hypocrites.

:-(

Makes him a
Are you saying freedom of speech and the First Amendment was strengthen by this verdict where as in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus it was seriously harmed?

Both rulings hurt us.

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Makes Chief Justice Roberts a hypocrite and a sellout.

06/26/2007 04:46:24 PM · #88

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Makes Chief Justice Roberts a hypocrite and a sellout.

Interesting. So freedom of speech is not to be tampered with, unless it is corporately funded speech in which case tighten the screws? I have a hard time following your ideology (assuming it is more than just run of the mill cynicism).

06/26/2007 04:47:09 PM · #89

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Makes Chief Justice Roberts a hypocrite and a sellout.

Interesting. So freedom of speech is not to be tampered with, unless it is corporately funded speech in which case tighten the screws? I have a hard time following your ideology (assuming it is more than just run of the mill cynicism).

What the hell are you talking about?

06/26/2007 04:48:39 PM · #90

Ok, assuming you are actually understanding these rulings that you are so vocal about.

The ruling regarding Mister Bong restricted free speech.

The ruling regarding campaign advertisements removed restrictions on free speech.

Yet you appear to be against both.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/26/2007 04:48:50 PM · #91

It would be nice if you could just articulate a point instead of trying to bully people.

This is where I stand plain and simple. Don't fuck with the bill of rights!

Is that clear enough for you?!!!

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 16:49:22.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

06/26/2007 04:49:14 PM · #92

I very seldom post in the rant thread so please excuse me if I'm asking a question that's not appropriate.

I do not agree with the sign but that my opinion. I don't care what the sign said, should the student be within his/her right to freedom of speech where he/she displayed the signage. This is the question.

Here, we have a law concerning public schools and it property and perceived property during school time and events. The school property stops at the actual property lines but the perceived property extends 100' past the actual property lines. Does that city, county, or state have such a rule? If so was that in question when the supreme court made it's ruling?

This is just a question. Not taking sides...

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 16:49:57.

06/26/2007 04:50:27 PM · #93

I'm not bullying you Wazoo, I'm asking you to clarify your position which seems to be at odds with itself.

fotomann_forever

06/26/2007 04:51:45 PM · #94

Bong hits for Wazzoo

06/26/2007 04:58:10 PM · #95

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I'm not bullying you Wazoo, I'm asking you to clarify your position which seems to be at odds with itself.

My position is the McCain feingold law was set in stone. The SC just opened the loop hole that was closed.

The bong hit boy was well with in his rights and the SC has now chipped further at The right to free speech. But it is not my intention to convert you.

The beautiful thing about the bill of rights (for the time being) is that we can disagree with each other. So on that lets agree to disagree as I certainly do with you.

I am no liberal I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights that is why I am pissed. Unlike you I see the erosion and I am very disheartened by it.

Especially the hypocrisy like this:

"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor." -Chief Justice Roberts

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:02:35.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

06/26/2007 05:04:15 PM · #96

Ok well, laws aren't set in stone. That's sort of the reason the supreme court exists - to pass judgement on the sanity of the laws Congress is creating.

We do disagree on the school thing. I am just puzzled how on one hand you are for free speech and on the other against free speech, especially politically oriented speech (regardless of who is paying for it).

Anyway the Feingold law was a farce. If Congress was concerned about undue influence in the political process they'd shut down the lobbying industry which lines their pockets. McCain's law was, im my mind, about as effectual as raising fuel economy standards for SUV's by a few miles per gallon over the next decade. It looks like they care, it looks like they are taking action, but they are just perpetuating the same bullshit for years to come.

Phil

Canon EOS-7D

06/26/2007 05:08:10 PM · #97

I'm pretty torn on this topic. The free speech side of me wants to say that these kids were well within their rights to do so while the other side of me says free speech LIKE THIS shouldn't exist at a school event. It's not about the Jesus thing or even the bong hit thing itself (Lord knows I've had a bong hit or two). It's the promotion of doing something illegal while at a school event. While my upcoming analogy is nowhere near bong hits, I wonder if my free speech side would speak up to me if the sign said, "Rape 5 year old girls for Jesus". I don't think so.

06/26/2007 05:09:06 PM · #98

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I am not sure what I can say so that you see I am for free speech. Period.

The rest is just spin man.

Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:11:33.

fotomann_forever

06/26/2007 05:12:46 PM · #99

Originally posted by dudephil:

While my upcoming analogy is nowhere near bong hits, I wonder if my free speech side would speak up to me if the sign said, "Rape 5 year old girls for Jesus". I don't think so.

You do make a good point.

However, I've always believed you could get any legislation passed if it involved the "well-being of the children." Lawmakers love using that to pass laws, which are then later modified to not even include children.