| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2007 05:19:25 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:20:16 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
It's calling for violence. |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:20:51 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
Isn't that still lawless action?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:21:41 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
Isn't that still lawless action? |
Isn't smoking pot a lawless action?
ETA: Not by the definition of the aforementioned case but wouldn't that be considered persuading someone to do something illegal?
Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:22:37. |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:22:28 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
Isn't that still lawless action? |
Isn't smoking pot a lawless action? |
Smoking pot is a consensual activity and not a direct act of violence against another individual. |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:24:37 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Smoking pot is a consensual activity and not a direct act of violence against another individual. |
But how can that be allowed at a school sponsored event?
Look at it this way. I'm at a cross county meet, jogging through the woods adjacent to my school. I come up on the principal and say, "Mr Smith, you are a douchebag". Do I get in trouble? |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:24:41 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
You can't say that because of "Imminent lawless action" Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). |
How so? The holder of the sign wouldn't be calling for a riot. Just the raping of little girls, right? |
Isn't that still lawless action? |
Isn't smoking pot a lawless action? |
Yes...I'm not getting the point of why people are debating that. I do see how this sign calls for "lawless action" which means that, in my opinion, the court did rule in the right direction. He has freedom of speech, but you can't tell people to break the law. That wouldn't be a "peaceful assembly" would it?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:25:08 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
ETA: Not by the definition of the aforementioned case but wouldn't that be considered persuading someone to do something illegal? |
It is by definition of the aforementioned case.
"inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action" |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:26:29 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
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. |
Congressman: You see this constitution?
People: Yes.
Congressman: I want to tear a piece off.
People: What????
Congressman: It's for the kids to *ahem* write on.
People: Ah ok.
Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:27:52. |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:27:18 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by dudephil:
ETA: Not by the definition of the aforementioned case but wouldn't that be considered persuading someone to do something illegal? |
It is by definition of the aforementioned case.
"inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action" |
So then the Supreme Court was correct in this case? |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:28:15 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by dudephil:
ETA: Not by the definition of the aforementioned case but wouldn't that be considered persuading someone to do something illegal? |
It is by definition of the aforementioned case.
"inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action" |
So then the Supreme Court was correct in this case? |
From the dissent:
"...I agree with the Court that the principal should not be
held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner. See Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). I would hold,
however, that the school's interest in protecting its students
from exposure to speech "reasonably regarded as
promoting illegal drug use," ante, at 1, cannot justify
disciplining Frederick for his attempt to make an ambiguous
statement to a television audience simply because it
contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First
Amendment demands more, indeed, much more."
Message edited by author 2007-06-26 17:28:36. |
|
|
|
06/26/2007 05:31:40 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
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. |
Congressman: You see this constitution?
People: Yes.
Congressman: I want to tear a piece off.
People: What????
Congressman: It's for the kids to *ahem* write on.
People: Ah ok. |
EXACTLY!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 07:31:26 PM EDT.
