tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post5159766145172955043..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: It's not against the law to be a jerk.Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-63764400366927271702011-03-05T11:23:06.166-05:002011-03-05T11:23:06.166-05:00Oh, that thing. I will point out that we now have ...Oh, that thing. I will point out that we now have 2 or 3 examples of states that went through permits to constitutional carry; and that I was more or less making fun of the anti-gun suggestion that we can't be allowed to carry but police can because of their "training."Ian Argenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03704336044732061128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-59819916873810844212011-03-05T06:33:18.060-05:002011-03-05T06:33:18.060-05:00No, I was talking about your "counter offer t...No, I was talking about your "counter offer to gun grabbers" post. <br /><br />What the government Give'th. The Government can take away. <br /><br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-42735447464599640472011-03-04T13:43:41.994-05:002011-03-04T13:43:41.994-05:00@Joshkie: My views on the 2A are similar to what I...@Joshkie: My views on the 2A are similar to what I've posted here as to the rights under the First. I suspect the difference you're seeing is that I didn't speak as to what happens on private property.<br /><br />When I said "Legally speaking, waving a sign saying "God hates fags" should be no different than waving one saying "I support the troops," I meant that <i>in a public venue</i> the power of government shouldn't be used to shut either down. If you trespass upon private property while doing so, that changes things.Ian Argenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03704336044732061128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-36564533908262897912011-03-04T11:30:29.764-05:002011-03-04T11:30:29.764-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Josh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-41326081596190480912011-03-04T02:54:52.282-05:002011-03-04T02:54:52.282-05:00The government through the justice system is there...The government through the justice system is there to determine guilt and punishment not protect us from ourselves. The only thing the government was supposed to protect us from is other governments. <br /><br />The only way the government can protect us from ourselves is to take our Libery from us. <br /><br />Something to think on,<br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-20594204502900512282011-03-04T02:43:41.482-05:002011-03-04T02:43:41.482-05:00Ian Argent -
I agree with you. But I wonder if d...Ian Argent - <br /><br />I agree with you. But I wonder if do you realize this was my argument to you in our discussion involving the 2nd Amendment on your blog.<br /><br />Maybe, I just didn't convey it as well as you. <br /><br />;-)<br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-81717982447415588942011-03-04T02:31:30.553-05:002011-03-04T02:31:30.553-05:00Borepatch -
I respectfully disagree what you are ...Borepatch -<br /><br />I respectfully disagree what you are advocating will lead to anytime any says anything you don't like in your presense you will know be emotionally scarred as a way to silence their speech, leading to leading to self censorship for fear of law suit. <br /><br />The correct action is being taken by groups like the patriot riders. <br /><br />More speech, not less,<br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-37704901285718535062011-03-04T02:18:38.944-05:002011-03-04T02:18:38.944-05:00Wolfwalker-
I want to agree with you, because wh...Wolfwalker- <br /><br />I want to agree with you, because what you say is as it should be. I'm just not sure if that is curent case law or not. <br /><br />Sad to say I'm to lazy at the moment to dig into it, so here's to hope I'm wrong.<br /><br />:-)<br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-14764686001168092382011-03-03T23:24:33.317-05:002011-03-03T23:24:33.317-05:00Tam, sorry for the long delay in replying to your ...Tam, sorry for the long delay in replying to your comment. Been a lousy week or three.<br /><br />Tortuously liable limits the Government involvement to essentially a market function, where what is essentially a Blood Price replaces Blood Feud. Person A slanders person B, who sues. The gubmint involvement is limited to enforcing the judgment in a private suit. First Amendment comes nowhere near this.<br /><br />Fron Alito's dissent:<br /><br /><i>Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Mat-thew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such anincalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respon-dents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprivedhim of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. [fn] The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.</i><br /><br />I can't agree, either. The problem with the current 8-1 opinion is that the government is essentially abdicating its market making funtion. The <i>only</i> private response will be to return to the Blood Feud, as the government will not allow lesser measures in this private dispute.<br /><br />What's going to happen is that the Westboro folks are going to get beaten, physically. That's too bad, because when this sort of thing starts, it's not so hard for it to escalate to where people get killed.<br /><br />It's a truism that "bad cases make bad law". This is yet another example of the tragedy of the commons, where a small part of the common weal just got trampled, because the elites cannot imagine actual physical power being exercised by anyone other than the Approved Organs (tm). It's not often that I get all Billy Beck-ish, but this will not end well.<br /><br />Not meaning any disrespect to Billy, just that he's typically much more pessimistic about the Republic's chances than I. But this time, I fear that this will have far reaching - and terribly destructive - effects that the Elites simply are incapable of imagining.Borepatchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05029434172945099693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-23425143911086231222011-03-03T19:30:42.924-05:002011-03-03T19:30:42.924-05:00@SpeakerTweeker: "where do we draw the line? ...@SpeakerTweeker: "where do we draw the line? Is it really only when there's actual physical harm done? Is there a point at which words are harmful enough to cross that line where Your Rights End and Mine Begin?"<br /><br />Yup. That's an obvious line to draw; the use of physical force without fear of unlawful physical force.<br /><br />Once you start allowing some words that are not threats of imminent bodily harm to justify use of force by private citizen or by the government, you've stepped into a scary place.<br /><br />Legally speaking, waving a sing saying "God hates fags" should be no different than waving one saying "I support the troops". I know which sign-waver I'll invite to dinner, admittedly, and it's not the ones with a case of the Rage Virus.<br /><br />When evaluating a power delegated to the government, consider what your worst enemy could do with it. If the government can shut down the WBC for using crass language, they can shut down an open holster protest for scaring the hoplophobes.Ian Argenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03704336044732061128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-12157414410695008852011-03-03T18:05:36.596-05:002011-03-03T18:05:36.596-05:00Joshkie: The judge is not overturning the "no...Joshkie: <i>The judge is not overturning the "not guilt verdict" he's declaring mistrail.</i><br /><br />Still not allowed. I believe there's actual case law on this, you can look it up. A mistrial must be declared while the trial is still going on. When the verdict is delivered, the trial is over, period, end of file. If the jury finds 'not guilty,' the case is closed regardless of the reasoning the jury used. A judge can overturn a 'not guilty' verdict for one reason and one reason only: if one or more jurors were illegally tampered with, so that the trial wasn't fair.wolfwalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-55177540612923380212011-03-03T16:28:20.204-05:002011-03-03T16:28:20.204-05:00'...there's no particular need to protect ...<i>'...there's no particular need to protect somebody waving a sign that says "I love mom and apple pie!"'</i><br /><br />Don't be so sure. These people are now to be regarded as "Tea-bagging Fascists" and the like. -- LyleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-24804197623141476682011-03-03T16:03:17.027-05:002011-03-03T16:03:17.027-05:00There is one type of speech not protected by the 1...There is one type of speech not protected by the 1st Amendment.<br /><br />Lying. Covered by Calumny: libel & slander. <br /><br />You can call out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is one but not if there is not. We now have hate Speach laws and others. The law has been broadened censor speech certain types like calls to violence. Used to be you could cal for someones death all you wanted, but unless they were actually kill and the murder sayed or could be linked to what you said. Nothing would happen as no harm was caused. If there was a link, you would be charged as an excesory to the murder. No speech was ever supposed to be forbidden or cesored. <br /><br />Even Lying is not forbidden you can just be prosecuted for the harm you cause. I just wish the government did give them selves immunity.<br /><br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-30094403313914741542011-03-03T15:58:47.513-05:002011-03-03T15:58:47.513-05:00perlhaqr: The problem is that our current attitude...perlhaqr: The problem is that our current attitude towards policing, as well as the rabbit-ization of America is enabling them, in my opinion.<br /><br />You are not going to see Phelps and his a-holes go into a biker bar and accuse Hells Angels and Mongols of being "fags".<br /><br />You would not have seen these a-holes pulling the same crap prior to the 1950's.<br /><br />The cops would take a statement from the survivors in the hospital, and quietly suggest that it might be more intelligent to not say such things in public, no matter how constitutional it might be.Kristophrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08370888276707569365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-24472077475356486122011-03-03T13:14:15.154-05:002011-03-03T13:14:15.154-05:00I agree with the decision that was made. However, ...I agree with the decision that was made. However, it should have been noted that the 1st Amendment protects a citizen from the government, not from a good old fashioned ass kicking administered by your fellow, pissed off citizens when you go off and act a fool.<br /><br />I will reference LawDog:<br />http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/03/meditations-on-civility.htmlTrenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02601612046900301546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-83922208539424016722011-03-03T10:45:22.969-05:002011-03-03T10:45:22.969-05:00I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with SCOTUS...I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with SCOTUS on this one. I was all for it; "When they came for my..." and all of that. I get it. I'll defend reprehensible speech in full wookie apparel.<br /><br />That was until I read Alito's dissent. Having learned the full facts of the case, and considering that this was a full-blown direct, personal attack on the deceased and family, I am forced to ask the question again: where do we draw the line? Is it really only when there's actual physical harm done? Is there a point at which words are harmful enough to cross that line where Your Rights End and Mine Begin?<br /><br />Someone, anyone, tell me: did SCOTUS just say that anyone can come to a funeral and say any damn thing they want, including press releases before the fact and personal attacks after, and the bereaved have to stand there and take it? Of course we can always hire dudes on choppers to line up their bikes to drown out the protesters, but I don't want choppers at the funeral.<br /><br />I give a damn about the content of the speech. Phelps and Co. are gaming the system, <i>and they're winning</i>. Why is that not a problem, and if it is, what is the solution (the one that won't land me in prison with Phelps siphoning away my life's savings)?<br /><br /><br /><br />tweakerSpeakerTweakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13520767686388236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-32613039937972843332011-03-03T09:47:58.263-05:002011-03-03T09:47:58.263-05:00The Phelpses support themselves on the jury awards...The Phelpses support themselves on the jury awards that they receive when the righteously indignant belt them one.B.S. philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991238092700083612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-39417926121786196982011-03-03T08:55:49.546-05:002011-03-03T08:55:49.546-05:00I have to admit that I'm finding it pretty dis...I have to admit that I'm finding it pretty distressing that the people notionally on "my team" here, which includes a fair number of people who take the Constitution pretty seriously, have an issue with this ruling.<br /><br />I mean, seriously, we're talking about a group of people who will generally with a straight face say that the Second Amendment secures a right to civilian ownership of Main Battle Tanks (which I happen to agree with, let it be said) and Destroyers or Aircraft Carriers, and there's even a debate that perhaps the government should be fining people for saying mean things? Or even turn a blind eye to actual assault and battery? I mean, come on!<br /><br />Yes, they are absolute assholes, and in a just universe they will be delivered to a God who takes some umbrage at the abuse of his name to further their horrible bastardry. After death, they should probably be stored in France in an airtight container as the official SI measure of Metric Shithead. But while they're on <b>this</b> plane, they have the right to say whatever the hell they want, even if it's really mean.<br /><br />This is not speech that can be presumed to cause actual physical harm to anyone, in the way in which shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater can. Howling about how "God Hates Fags" and whatnot is not going to cause a mad stampede to the exits because it's not a mortal threat. Lacking that, it must be acknowledged as protected speech, and defended as such no matter the content.perlhaqrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-55814263805539205142011-03-03T08:20:23.888-05:002011-03-03T08:20:23.888-05:00How are these people financed? I mean there is lik...How are these people financed? I mean there is like what... 6 of them.<br />Where's the money coming from?McVeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-43077236680201947752011-03-03T08:12:56.739-05:002011-03-03T08:12:56.739-05:00Correction:
"....interpretation of the US Co...Correction: <br />"....interpretation of the US Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers in a..." <br /><br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-34020263273887502112011-03-03T07:59:59.350-05:002011-03-03T07:59:59.350-05:00WolfWalker -
The judge is not overturning the &q...WolfWalker - <br /><br />The judge is not overturning the "not guilt verdict" he's declaring mistrail. This decision would then be appealed to higher court or a new trail and jury selected. The judge overturning the verdict would be him ruling guilty or not guilty himself. <br /><br />Our legal system hasn't adhered to the strict interpretation of the Founding Fathers in a longtime. <br /><br />I'm not a lawer and this is my curent understand of our legal system, so I could be wrong. <br /><br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-49184061789856834232011-03-03T07:41:35.076-05:002011-03-03T07:41:35.076-05:00I would love to see the meme spread that, perhaps,...I would love to see the meme spread that, perhaps, (wondering if anybody ever considered that) the existence of homosexuality is evidence that God hates Fred Phelps.<br /><br />Just a thought.<br /><br />Plugging thoughts into the meme streme since 1988.<br /><br />MMark Algerhttp://www.babytrollblog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-75073674581787952682011-03-03T05:57:40.053-05:002011-03-03T05:57:40.053-05:00He can't do that, Josh. That's the whole ...He can't do that, Josh. That's the whole point of jury nullification: the judge can't overturn a 'not guilty' verdict for any reason. The Fifth Amendment forbids it. The only exception is if it's proven after the trial that the defendant rigged the trial by blackmail, bribery, etc.wolfwalkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-69985490880078194742011-03-03T03:48:17.356-05:002011-03-03T03:48:17.356-05:00AEB -
Sorry to say the courts don't work tha...AEB - <br /><br />Sorry to say the courts don't work that way anymore...sigh. <br /><br />The judge would probable declare misstrial siting jury didn't follow juryinstruction or the "law."<br /><br />Sigh :-(<br />JoshJosh Kruschkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288700371539530398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-76856562990627995612011-03-03T00:25:11.345-05:002011-03-03T00:25:11.345-05:00@Boris -- Yep, that's the problem that most of...@Boris -- Yep, that's the problem that most of us have, whether we're protecting our beloved .mil job or only our CCW/CHP permission slip.<br /><br />@Phelps -- If I, or any of the gazillion likeminded others, ever happen to slip past your lawyers in voir dire, you can bet your bottom dollar on some good ol' fashioned JURY NULLIFICATION coming your way. Bubba beat the everlovin' stuffings out of you? Well, gosh, I don't see it that way and I declare him INNOCENT. Tina flattened all y'alls' tires while you were raising a ruckus in the cemetery? Bummerdude, I don't think the prosecution met its burden of proof, and I declare her INNOCENT. etcAlternative Enforcement Bureaunoreply@blogger.com