Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

The First Amendment.

Well, there ought to be limits to freedom. You shouldn't just say that the Congress can never abridge the freedom of speech to people or the Press. There might come a time where it would be beneficial to the common good to do so.

Look you guise, I just don't like the First Amendment that much, you don't have to get all up in my grills about it. ;_;

Yeah, seriously, dude. What's up with voting against the Civil Right Act, son? "Op, sorry negroes, guess you're just gonna have to drink out of your own fountain."

Wait, I thought you were against abortion. Isn't that what Roe vs. Wade's about?

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which is explicitly allowed in the Constitution)..I can't think of any assaults against freedom of speech off the top of my head, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some I'm forgetting.

I'm against Social Security and Medicare.

I'm actually amazed that anyone is even considering serious debate with an individual whose avatar is Hitler. Such gestures are surely the mark of a troll, albeit a more subtle one (postwise anyway) than the usual "UR ALL FAGZ!!!" fare

Ian: I oppose such bans not out of any principled stance that racist landlords should be allowed to turn away black prospective tenants, but because of the practical implications of having such bans. Fortunately, not very many landlords these days would turn away a tenant on the basis of race (even racist ones care more about money than skin color), so it's virtually a non-issue.

It was far from a non-issue 40 years ago. Employers and landlords would routinely turn away blacks, either because they cared more about skin color than money, or because they feared that racist customers, fellow tenants, and/or other employees would be scared off. Societal attitudes have changed a lot over the past 40 years, most people now find racism and racial discrimination repugnant, and few employers or landlords are racist enough to turn away blacks, so it's become largely a non-issue.

Guy I don't know with the goat (or is it a donkey?) avatar: Why would having a Hitler avatar make me a troll?

...Who let you out of the lower boards?

I would have dissented in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1989) because I consider executions of under-16 year olds to be constitutional.

Ace: That rings a bell.

Lincoln's regime was guilty of many other high-handed acts...

The federal officials also ordered the suspension of certain newspapers and the arrest of their editors on grounds of obstructing the war

I would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia (1967) because I consider bans on interracial marriage to be constitutional.

Author:	HHFOV [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:
The First Amendment. Also, Roe vs. Wade.

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: The First Amendment. Why?

Author:	HHFOV [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Mang, if you be giving peoples freedom of speech, you don't know what could happen! They might be dissing on the Authority and stuff.

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Um, OK. Any serious reasons?

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:34 am ]
Post subject:
Well, there ought to be limits to freedom. You shouldn't just say that the Congress can never abridge the freedom of speech to people or the Press. There might come a time where it would be beneficial to the common good to do so.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

blank'd http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13174	Page 1 of 2

Author:	IantheGecko [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am ]
Post subject:
That's why the Court has established precedences, such as the "clear and present danger" set forth in Schenck v. United States.

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:52 am ]
Post subject:
Look you guise, I just don't like the First Amendment that much, you don't have to get all up in my grills about it. ;_;

Author:	Acekirby [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:36 am ]
Post subject:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: Well, there ought to be limits to freedom. You shouldn't just say that the Congress can never abridge the freedom of speech to people or the Press. There might come a time where it would be beneficial to the common good to do so. Actually, Lincoln technically abridged on freedoms in the Civil War. And whaddya know, it worked out great! Not sure if there's any time in the modern world where it'd be beneficial, though. HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: Look you guise, I just don't like the First Amendment that much, you don't have to get all up in my grills about it. ;_; R&P IS SRS BIZ!

Author:	IantheGecko [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:16 am ]
Post subject:
Give other people time to come to the forum and read this thread. It's only been about five hours since you first posted. But please explain your reasons against the 16th Amendment, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act.

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:26 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, seriously, dude. What's up with voting against the Civil Right Act, son? "Op, sorry negroes, guess you're just gonna have to drink out of your own fountain." > : \|

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:27 am ]
Post subject:
Other than the obvious ones that have been overturned (18th amendment, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc), and Roe v. Wade, there aren't many major decisions that I would've voted differently from the actual result. But I don't know much about them. HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: Yeah, seriously, dude. What's up with voting against the Civil Right Act, son? "Op, sorry negroes, guess you're just gonna have to drink out of your own fountain." I don't think that's the one he's talking about... The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was about discrimination in housing. And 'voting against' doesn't mean he is totally against the idea; it might just mean he didn't like a part of it, like maybe the part about handicap and family status discrimination or something.

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:28 am ]
Post subject:
Wait, I thought you were against abortion. Isn't that what Roe vs. Wade's about?

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:34 am ]
Post subject:
Oh, I thought you meant you disagreed with Yeltensic on his ruling of the decision. Nevermind. Back to work, everyone.

Author:	Acekirby [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:12 am ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which is explicitly allowed in the Constitution)..I can't think of any assaults against freedom of speech off the top of my head, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some I'm forgetting. According to what I just learned about the Civil War in AP History, arrests were made on the anti-war editors of Copperhead newspapers.

Author:	IantheGecko [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:49 am ]
Post subject:
Why would you be against bans on racial discrimination in housing? Shouldn't someone, regardless of race, be able to buy/rent a house if (s)he is fully capable of paying for it?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sedric A. Dragon [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:49 am ]
Post subject:
I'm actually amazed that anyone is even considering serious debate with an individual whose avatar is Hitler. Such gestures are surely the mark of a troll, albeit a more subtle one (postwise anyway) than the usual "UR ALL FAGZ!!!" fare

Author:	iand93 [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:04 am ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: I'm against Social Security and Medicare. You don't like old people?

Author:	furrykef [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:04 am ]
Post subject:
Sedric A. Dragon wrote: I'm actually amazed that anyone is even considering serious debate with an individual whose avatar is Hitler. Such gestures are surely the mark of a troll, albeit a more subtle one (postwise anyway) than the usual "UR ALL FAGZ!!!" fare Yeltensic's been here a while, though he hadn't been around lately until now. He's not a troll. Or if so, he's too subtle and as far as I know never really succeeded. - Kef

Author:	Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:35 am ]
Post subject:
Sedric A. Dragon wrote: I'm actually amazed that anyone is even considering serious debate with an individual whose avatar is Hitler. Such gestures are surely the mark of a troll, albeit a more subtle one (postwise anyway) than the usual "UR ALL FAGZ!!!" fare ...Who let you out of the lower boards?

Author:	IantheGecko [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:36 am ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: Ian: I oppose such bans not out of any principled stance that racist landlords should be allowed to turn away black prospective tenants, but because of the practical implications of having such bans. Fortunately, not very many landlords these days would turn away a tenant on the basis of race (even racist ones care more about money than skin color), so it's virtually a non-issue. What practical implications? If it were a non-issue, then there wouldn't need to be a ban in the first place. But since it was/is an issue, then there is a need for the ban.

Author:	Biscuithead [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:05 am ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: It was far from a non-issue 40 years ago. Employers and landlords would routinely turn away blacks, either because they cared more about skin color than money, or because they feared that racist customers, fellow tenants, and/or other employees would be scared off. Societal attitudes have changed a lot over the past 40 years, most people now find racism and racial discrimination repugnant, and few employers or landlords are racist enough to turn away blacks, so it's become largely a non-issue. The first line here says it all. "It was far from a non-issue 40 years ago" so if you were making the laws a few years ago, you would probably consider it to still be somewhat of an issue. If anti-discrimination laws were not in place, then society may not have changed so much to accept all races. There would be no reason for people not to be racist, so society would probably be a whole lot more discriminatory. All in all, society is better off for having laws which may not seem worthwhile, but help to set a moral standard.

Author:	HHFOV [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Maybe he just likes Hitler. You got a problem with that?

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote: ...Who let you out of the lower boards? Dragon's first two posts were the only ones not in the lower boards... top of toastpaint the page dance

Author:	Acekirby [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Maybe he just thinks it would be a cool avatar to have. He's not a troll, not by any stretch of the imagination. He just happens to have a Hitler avatar. Yeltensic wrote: I would have dissented in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1989) because I consider executions of under-16 year olds to be constitutional. Ouch. Yeltensic wrote: Ace: That rings a bell. Mmm, yeah, I just went back to check my book for the reference: Quote: Lincoln's regime was guilty of many other high-handed acts... The federal officials also ordered the suspension of certain newspapers and the arrest of their editors on grounds of obstructing the war Not to say I don't support Lincoln. I feel that the measures he took here were completely warranted because otherwise it would have led to the destruction of the Union and the spread of slavery. I would have voted Lincoln wholeheartedly in both the 1860 and 1864 election. Especially in 1864 because McClellan just sucks.

Author:	Acekirby [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
If he did, I don't support it. I don't support any of Bush's "infringements" on rights (ie wiretaps etc), because I believe the situations are completely different and don't call for drastic action like Lincoln's situation did.

Author:	Lunar Jesty [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: I would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia (1967) because I consider bans on interracial marriage to be constitutional. May I ask why? The Ninth Amendment makes your argument a weak one. If you're coming from a position that the church can do whatever they want because marriage is a religious institution, why ban it outright? Why not leave it up to the church?

Author:	Mikes! [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:03 am ]
Post subject:
Yeltensic wrote: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (which is explicitly allowed in the Constitution)..I can't think of any assaults against freedom of speech off the top of my head, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some I'm forgetting. Off the top of my head: Sedition Act of 1789 The Espionage Act of 1917 Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998