Federal Judge B-slaps Cuomo & de Blimpo for violating the First Amendment.

[meaner gene]

It's really irrelevant. Our civil rights are not based upon how positive something is. Such as free speech. There are some real negative aspects to free speech but we still have free speech. There are no redeeming values in allowing say the KKK to use the local park to espouse their crap BUT they still have to be allowed to do it.

I disagree, the supreme court constantly weighs the "compelling government interest" and the application of the "least restrictive" solution.

It was ironic when the ACLU were the one's advocating the the KKK's right to march in Skokie Il. But as is often said, the 1st amendment doesn't just defend speech we agree with, but speech we find vile.

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

 

[pknopp]

Limiting worship services is a public health issue, not a First Amendment issue.

Both can be in conflict with each other. If a religious cult preached that it's members should take up arms against the government, they have to weight the 1st amendment against the compelling government interest.

The founders noted that people would at times have to take up arms against the government. Hence the first and second amendment.

In such a case, no matter what religious pretext is used to protect it, acts of violence, or their encouragement can be prohibited.

In a matter of public health where millions are infected requires king Solomon to come up with a solution.

They have taken up arms "in defence of the Freedom that is our Birthright and which we ever enjoyed until the late Violation of it", and will "lay them down when Hostilities shall cease on the part of the Aggressors".

Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775 - American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation | Teacher Resources - Library of Congress

 

[pknopp]

It's really irrelevant. Our civil rights are not based upon how positive something is. Such as free speech. There are some real negative aspects to free speech but we still have free speech. There are no redeeming values in allowing say the KKK to use the local park to espouse their crap BUT they still have to be allowed to do it.

I disagree, the supreme court constantly weighs the "compelling government interest" and the application of the "least restrictive" solution.

It was ironic when the ACLU were the one's advocating the the KKK's right to march in Skokie Il. But as is often said, the 1st amendment doesn't just defend speech we agree with, but speech we find vile.

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

No, it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater all day UNLESS it actually causes harm to someone.

 

[Nostra]

That’s hysterical.

Now maybe a real judge will reverse that BS

If you want to die that’s on you. And if you intentionally spread this virus you shouldn’t get medical care and should die like a dog in the street

Your unhinged rant doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

Limiting worship services is a public health issue, not a First Amendment issue.

Wrong Dummy, it’s a freedom of religion issue.

it is in the US Constitution, so you wouldn’t know anything about it, Canuck.

 

[satrebil]

That’s hysterical.

Now maybe a real judge will reverse that BS

If you want to die that’s on you. And if you intentionally spread this virus you shouldn’t get medical care and should die like a dog in the street

Your unhinged rant doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

Limiting worship services is a public health issue, not a First Amendment issue.

So protests, which are protected by the First Amendment, are fine. But religious services, which are also protected by the First Amendment, are not fine.

Do you fucking morons hear yourselves?

 

[lantern2814]

That’s hysterical.

Now maybe a real judge will reverse that BS

If you want to die that’s on you. And if you intentionally spread this virus you shouldn’t get medical care and should die like a dog in the street

And if you went to a protest you are not to get any medical care. See how that works?

 

[meaner gene]

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

No, it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater all day UNLESS it actually causes harm to someone.

No actual harm is needed, which would only support an independent charge. The act itself if likely to cause harm is all that is needed.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. P. 249 U. S. 51.

a circular tending to influence them to obstruct the draft, with the intent to effect that result, and followed by the sending of such circulars, is within the power of Congress to punish, and is punishable under the Espionage Act, § 4, although unsuccessful. P. 249 U. S. 52.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong Dummy, it’s a freedom of religion issue.

it is in the US Constitution, so you wouldn’t know anything about it, Canuck.

Human Sacrifice: Why the Aztecs Practiced This Gory Ritual ...
www.history.com › aztec-human-sacrifice-religion

Aztec priests, using razor-sharp obsidian blades, sliced open the chests of sacrificial victims and offered their still-beating hearts to the gods.

Yet people are legally prohibited from exercising a religion older than christianity.

 

[pknopp]

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

No, it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater all day UNLESS it actually causes harm to someone.

No actual harm is needed, which would only support an independent charge. The act itself if likely to cause harm is all that is needed.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. P. 249 U. S. 51.

a circular tending to influence them to obstruct the draft, with the intent to effect that result, and followed by the sending of such circulars, is within the power of Congress to punish, and is punishable under the Espionage Act, § 4, although unsuccessful. P. 249 U. S. 52.

That was shortly overturned.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[meaner gene]

So protests, which are protected by the First Amendment, are fine. But religious services, which are also protected by the First Amendment, are not fine.

Do you fucking morons hear yourselves?

Actually it's a matter of means of enforcement. Remember Trump shut down the legal protest in Lafayette park.

The case in question is one of discrimination because the Governor and Mayor didn't shut down the protests like Trump did, hence differed from their shutdown of religious events.

 

[pknopp]

So protests, which are protected by the First Amendment, are fine. But religious services, which are also protected by the First Amendment, are not fine.

Do you fucking morons hear yourselves?

Actually it's a matter of means of enforcement. Remember Trump shut down the legal protest in Lafayette park.

And it went over really poorly.

The case in question is one of discrimination because the Governor and Mayor didn't shut down the protests like Trump did, hence differed from their shutdown of religious events.

It appears that way.

 

[meaner gene]

That was shortly overturned.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

The actual ruling (1919), that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come. ... In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That’s hysterical.

Now maybe a real judge will reverse that BS

If you want to die that’s on you. And if you intentionally spread this virus you shouldn’t get medical care and should die like a dog in the street

Your unhinged rant doesn’t trump the First Amendment.

Limiting worship services is a public health issue, not a First Amendment issue.

Of course it is.... But allowing unrestricted gatherings to protest is of course not a health issue right?

 

[Billiejeens]

That’s hysterical.

Now maybe a real judge will reverse that BS

If you want to die that’s on you. And if you intentionally spread this virus you shouldn’t get medical care and should die like a dog in the street

You are a perfect example of why women didn't get to vote the first century and a half of this experiment in Representative Democracy.

 

[Billiejeens]

You really have to the left a good laugh most of the time.
Opening up, having church services all with mitigation measures in place is wrong because the virus attacks people that want to feed families and pray. But having rioting, looting with no mitigation in place is fine because it fits the crazy platform the democrats have crafted. Besides the virus will know to skip over these people.

I guess that it's not totally out of the question that the Chinese might have put an option inside the virus to not attack certain detectable mindsets.
We don't really know how advanced they are - and those little Chinese Fuckers love to be busy.

 

[Billiejeens]

This isn't the end of the discussion but I have questioned the authority for many things that have been done. Whether something is good or bad may be irrelevant to whether or not it is legal.

As is often the case.

 

[harmonica]

Cuomo is backing the hate group BLM !!!!!

 

[Billiejeens]

It's really irrelevant. Our civil rights are not based upon how positive something is. Such as free speech. There are some real negative aspects to free speech but we still have free speech. There are no redeeming values in allowing say the KKK to use the local park to espouse their crap BUT they still have to be allowed to do it.

I disagree, the supreme court constantly weighs the "compelling government interest" and the application of the "least restrictive" solution.

It was ironic when the ACLU were the one's advocating the the KKK's right to march in Skokie Il. But as is often said, the 1st amendment doesn't just defend speech we agree with, but speech we find vile.

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

Which is perfectly legal - Though it is often used as an example, don't feel too badly.

 

[meaner gene]

Limiting worship services is a public health issue, not a First Amendment issue.

Of course it is.... But allowing unrestricted gatherings to protest is of course not a health issue right?

A big difference is through the means of enforcement. You can shut down a church gathering by putting a chain on the door. To stop a protest you need hundreds of police officers in riot gear.

;

 

[meaner gene]

But as with yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, acts which promote death and violence can be prohibited public safety.

Which is perfectly legal - Though it is often used as an example, don't feel too badly.

2006 Ohio Revised Code - 2917.31. Inducing panic.
§ 2917.31. Inducing panic.

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;


(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(5)(b) or (c) of this section, inducing panic is a felony of the fourth degree.

(b) If the violation results in physical harm to any person and if division (C)(5)(c)(iii) of this section does not apply, inducing panic is a felony of the third degree.