presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #21
you claiming your rights were taken away because of something you said is a speech crime,,
I didn't punch anybody or break anything. I took no action. It was written speech only.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
you claiming your rights were taken away because of something you said is a speech crime,,
it was more than speech,, in a better time you could have just been killedI didn't punch anybody or break anything. I took no action. It was written speech only.
as I said,, be greatfull times have changed and you werent just killed,,
you claiming your rights were taken away because of something you said is a speech crime,,
it was more than speech,
because they dont exist,,I have just never heard of a speech crime. That's all.
you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,It was text messages. What do you mean it was more than speech? And people do get killed for the things they say.
because they dont exist,,
you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,
back when times were better she would be justified in putting a bullet in your head and rolling your body in a ditch and walking away like nothing happened,,
I miss those days,,
in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,Most sane people just block the number. That's what I did. I don't see why going to the magistrate was necessary. I would have rather been killed though. At least that would have made sense.
I still don't think the freedom of speech means the same thing it did in 1789. It has changed a little bit. Some things aren't considered free speech anymore.
because they dont exist,,
you said she told you to leave her alone and you refused and kept harassing her,,
back when times were better she would be justified in putting a bullet in your head and rolling your body in a ditch and walking away like nothing happened,,
I miss those days,,
in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,
those were better times,, so consider yourself lucky and move on,,
your dead,,,What's wrong with getting killed?
in 1789 you would have been killed for bothering a person that just wanted to be left alone,,,
those were better times,, so consider yourself lucky and move on,,
your dead,,,
speech is a right not a law,,By the way. This is a discussion about laws not culture.
it was more than speech,, in a better time you could have just been killed
it wouldnt be for texting it would be for harassing,,Would you really go to the magistrate to file charges against someone for sending you a text message? I don't believe you would.
You aren't very convincing. I don't believe you are that petty. This bitch wanted to kill me. She used ever weapon at her disposal.
it wouldnt be for texting it would be for harassing,,
who are you??Stop writing stuff on this forum to me or about me.
Yeah it's unfortunate but the violations are abundant both at the lower courts and SCOTUS.Of course. I would just expect a judge to follow the law. So I would think the incidence of constutional violations would be rare but they are abundant. The Supreme Court throws out cases all the time where a lower level judge violated the law. It is common for judges to piggyback off of case law when they disagree with the law. That's why I am led to believe these judges do have the authority to violate constitutional rights of individuals since being afforded a trial is due process. Your rights can be violated but not without the court's approval.
I don't know. I guess I have seen too much in life and spent too much time believing in the constitution. I'm pretty sure the constitution is only good for toilet paper when you run out. It's a fantasy.
Is this an academic endeavor? I ask because government, which is supposed to protect the rights of the people as spelled out in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, is doing the opposite.Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or
Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?
This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?