Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Patriot Act smackdown: Librarians 1, FBI 0

Recommended Posts

Clearly an op-ed.

In any case, is it really a good thing that librarians stymied attempts to retrieve information that may help us remain safe?

I check books out from the library all the time, and, quite frankly, I don't give a crap who knows what I am reading. Why? Because I'm not doing anything wrong.

Here's the problem with the essential argument: just because a power CAN be abused, doesn't mean the power WILL be and therefore said power shouldn't exist. If that were the case, no one could do ANYTHING because that one could argue that almost anything can go bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Wolferz:

Back to that "safe" arguement again?


I don't know ... YOU may find it silly to keep people safe but *I* tend to think that the primary role of government.

Besides, with all the complaining the left does about the government's ability to violate civil rights, they have yet to show any examples of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government can say that they are keeping us safe all they want but, it's a blatant lie. Way too many bad things can happen to every one of us.

Things the government has no control over, now or ever. Anyone who confesses to think otherwise, is deluding themselves.

Safety begins within your own personal space and depends greatly upon your awareness of your surroundings. That's Not something the government can help you with, other than the never ending Yellow threat level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I don't give a crap who knows what I am reading. Why? Because I'm not doing anything wrong.

Obviously you're not reading 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Wolferz:

The government can say that they are keeping us safe all they want but, it's a blatant lie. Way too many bad things can happen to every one of us.

Things the government has no control over, now or ever. Anyone who confesses to think otherwise, is deluding themselves.

Safety begins within your own personal space and depends greatly upon your awareness of your surroundings. That's Not something the government can help you with, other than the never ending Yellow threat level.


That is the most out-of-context post I've ever read, and I have a feeling that it's an intentional attempt to make a play-on-words and change the subject.

Here, let me spell it out for you. When I say "keep us safe" I mean prevent a nuclear bomb from going off in mine or your backyard. I'm fairly certain that the government is far better equipped to do this than the average, even astute, man. Also, I've fairly certain that you knew I wasn't refering to everyday dangers. Furthermore, I'm quite positive that you're smart enough to know that there are dangers far worse than ANYTHING you, as an individual, are equipped to face.

So, you can continue to go about your day feeling invincible, and people like me will continue the thankless job of allowing ungrateful people like you to think you're invincible. People will continue to risk their lives simply so you can say that they really don't need to.

Or, you can stop the word games and either debate the issue or step to the sidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll concede your point but, riddle me this oh wise one..

09/11/01 Four commercial jets are turned into flying bombs. What did the government do to insure our safety that day? Nada damn thing.

I won't waste my thoughts on the hithertos and the whyfors. Thier track record speaks for itself.

So, you think I'm ungrateful for your service to this nation. You couldn't be more wrong.

I served this country too in case you didn't know. Therefore, I am probably better equipped to face a situation than the average citizen.

I was sworn to uphold the constitution the same as you, the same as the president, the same as every other elected or appointed official. That's why it grieves me when I see them trampling the constitution and the Bill of rights with thier super secret crap.

I am way past eighteen and that feeling of invincibility left me a long time ago.

Since my secondary MOS was NBC, I know that a nuke going off in my back yard won't concern me in the least due the obliteration effect of the flash. Then comes the shockwave which is going to level my home. At that point I won't be caring about anything.

Now, if the government has become so paranoid that they feel the overwhelming urge to go against the constitution and turn our country into a Nazi prison camp, so be it.

I'll be over here on the sidelines waiting to say "I told you so!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to agree with Wolferz on this case. Saftey can be achieved with keeping the police in check through courts. Its required to keep a free democratic society. The U.S. is becoming a police state, and thats by far the scariest thing that America has seen yet.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


09/11/01 Four commercial jets are turned into flying bombs. What did the government do to insure our safety that day? Nada damn thing.

I won't waste my thoughts on the hithertos and the whyfors. Thier track record speaks for itself.


Umm, so you're saying that, because of a failure, we should simply say the system is broken and not worry about these things occuring, despite the numerous successes we've had?

Riddle me THIS: how many terrorist attacks on the scale of 9.11 or worse would/could occur without the government interceding? Let's just say it's interesting how the UK and Spain has been hit since but our government has managed to keep us (the prime target) safe.

quote:


So, you think I'm ungrateful for your service to this nation. You couldn't be more wrong.

I served this country too in case you didn't know. Therefore, I am probably better equipped to face a situation than the average citizen.


I only think what YOUR comments lead me to think. As for your service, why did you bother? Like you implied, we don't need the government to keep us safe (the military belongs to the government), so why serve?

Because, you know is well as I do that the whole FUNCTION of a government is the safety of it's citizens. Though you may be perfect, I know I am not and therefore the government of the people is not, and therefore failures are to be expected. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve. Sure, the failure on 9.11 was HUGE. But, we're learning from it. What is wrong with that?

quote:


I was sworn to uphold the constitution the same as you, the same as the president, the same as every other elected or appointed official. That's why it grieves me when I see them trampling the constitution and the Bill of rights with thier super secret crap.

The Constitution does NOT provide the public with unlimited access to information. YOUR right to know does NOT supercede the GOVERNMENT'S ability to do it's job. It would be IRRESPONSIBLE to deny a government of the people the ability to employ tools to protect people.

If you want to know, get elected.

quote:


I am way past eighteen and that feeling of invincibility left me a long time ago.

Since my secondary MOS was NBC, I know that a nuke going off in my back yard won't concern me in the least due the obliteration effect of the flash. Then comes the shockwave which is going to level my home. At that point I won't be caring about anything.


I have a wife and children and therefore my first thought is to assure that doesn't happen in the first place.

quote:


Now, if the government has become so paranoid that they feel the overwhelming urge to go against the constitution and turn our country into a Nazi prison camp, so be it.

I'll be over here on the sidelines waiting to say "I told you so!"


Show me some evidence of this happening ANYWHERE.

Oh, if you're a democrat ... your favorite president, FDR, interned thousands of Japanese AMERICANS. That's right: citizens. Bush has interned NONE. Sure, we've interned suspected terrorists in Cuba, but they don't have the same rights as Americans.

quote:


I've got to agree with Wolferz on this case. Saftey can be achieved with keeping the police in check through courts. Its required to keep a free democratic society. The U.S. is becoming a police state, and thats by far the scariest thing that America has seen yet.

Why do people keep saying that? *I* haven't lost any of MY freedoms. YOU haven't lost any of YOUR freedoms. Show me an example of an American citizen losing his freedoms due to out-of-control government. All you people out there who keep crying about government powers out of check seriously needs to look into the facts a little more. Why? Because those powers are IN CHECK, and STILL subject to law. Also, they are under government oversight. This is NOTHING different than what we've been doing for the last 60 years.

It's a flaw to assert that, just because the government HAS power, it is going to ABUSE it. Why? Because that argument can apply to almost ANYTHING.

So, in the end, all of you alarmists who still, ironically, have your freedoms can stop worrying. No one's rights have been trampled on. I'll start listening to you when you have an examples of American citizens being denied their rights and the system of checks and balances fails them.

Yes, that's right: even if they are denied rights our system has levels to protect that.

The "it could happen" argument is dead, as far as I'm concerned. Living in fear of everything that can go wrong is no way to live, and, like I said, my freedoms are doing just fine, thank you. Rather than fighting what "could happen", I'll focus on what WILL happen if we don't take steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Because, you know is well as I do that the whole FUNCTION of a government is the safety of it's citizens.

Sure, but sometimes that requires the government to protect its citizens from itself, to prevent less responsible people from abusing the power they receive.

quote:

Because those powers are IN CHECK, and STILL subject to law.

Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances.

quote:

It's a flaw to assert that, just because the government HAS power, it is going to ABUSE it.

Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Sure, the failure on 9.11 was HUGE. But, we're learning from it. What is wrong with that?

You are correct about that. It was huge, and the guys who were in charge still have thier jobs.

Tell me that ain't FUBAR.

So now I'm supposed to accept all this super secret court BS and spying on the American people and detaining people without the due process of public courts and the demand for whatever records they want, without court subpoena?

The government doesn't have a clue as to who the thirty million undocumented foreigners are that slipped within our borders and I'm supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy because they learned from a huge mistake?

The Librarians seem to be the only true patriots we have left. Maybe because they tend to be very intelligent people and not blind lemmings.

Weegee, That is one of my favorite Franklin quotes

GO Librarians!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is long, but you should read all of it because I think I've gotten to the root of the issue.

quote:


You are correct about that. It was huge, and the guys who were in charge still have thier jobs.

Tell me that ain't FUBAR.


It isn't FUBAR, because it is the very nature of the democratic republic you and I both seem to believe in. The guys who were in charge just recently moved into those positions because the guys previously in charge ran into a problem called "term limits". The EXTREMELY new administration can't be held accountable for the bureaucratic holes left by an old administration, and you can't fire the old one because it's already gone.

I know that we, as Americans, sometimes have a "gotta blame someone" mentality, but here's a genuine case of there's really no good in blaming anyone. So what can we do? Learn from the mistake, take steps to prevent a future mistake, and fill in holes in the system that allowed the mistake to occur in the first place. I think the Bush administration's record stands strong on that account.

quote:


So now I'm supposed to accept all this super secret court BS and spying on the American people and detaining people without the due process of public courts and the demand for whatever records they want, without court subpoena?

I'm going to try to take this one really slowly ... what super-secret court BS?

What spying on American people?

What detention of American CITIZENS without due process?

Finally, what RIGHTS of YOURS are being VIOLATED?

I hope you finally see my point.

In any case, I find it humorous how people in your camp always pull this "right-to-know" crap, but then when someone checks out a LIBRARY BOOK, from a PUBLIC LIBRARY the PUBLIC does NOT have a "right-to-know"? It, then, would only make sense that the public DOES have a right-to-know, because said book is public property. So, instead of making everyone's public check-out data available to EVERYONE, we take a more modest step of letting the government simply TRACK such records (which is ALREADY DOES because it IS a PUBLIC LIBRARY) that it deems appropriate.

Simply put, one part of government oversight is now talking to another part, and only in cases the second part deems appropriate.

Even THEN, although someone can LOOK at the data, they CANNOT USE said data without a subpeona. But would it make sense to PUBLICALLY announce a subpeona in an investigation, when that information ITSELF can COMPROMISE said investigation? Of COURSE not.

So what happens are investigations that can continue with the information kept secret until the information is conclusive or it is discarded as irrelevent.

In fact, if you REALLY think about it, this PROTECTS YOUR PRIVACY!

Let's say YOU found yourself on a terrorist watch list because someone who just doesn't like you put you there. Now, the government can investigate it the current way, with you never knowing and with NONE of the information developed able to be used against you except when relevent to the initial investigation and AFTER the subpeona is gained proving that information relevent. Of course, they wouldn't find anything and know one would ever know about said investigation, and your name would not be dragged through the mud for no real purpose.

Or, we could go YOUR route and PUBLICALLY investigate EVERYTHING about you (once probable cause is determined in public court EVERYTHING that is found can be used against you) and who KNOWS WHAT would happen.

So, by keeping these investigations secret the government is, as a side-effect, protecting the privacy of the innocent while helping to protect us by not tipping the hand of those who seek to harm us.

quote:


The government doesn't have a clue as to who the thirty million undocumented foreigners are that slipped within our borders and I'm supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy because they learned from a huge mistake?

Two completely separate issues. If you want to discuss how awful illegal immigration is (or should I say, Mexico's export of poverty), you'll find that I agree with you. But I can't say that, because one thing is bad, EVERYTHING else sucks.

quote:


The Librarians seem to be the only true patriots we have left. Maybe because they tend to be very intelligent people and not blind lemmings.

Patriots? No. Exercising a legal appelate right doesn't make someone a patriot.

Besides, they work for publically funded institutions. Again, you have a right-to-know. But you don't. But you do. But...

See, that's why this issue is FAR more gray than you probably think.

Wolfrez, I'll give you some love though ... I think you're more pissed about other things than this and your mixing the issues a bit. I would agree with you that the nanny government shouldn't be telling us to wear bike helmets, for instance. I'd even agree that the administration has been WAY too lacking with regards to illegal immigration.

But, I can't agree that their manner of investigating terrorism is violated our rights because it simply isn't.

[ 07-01-2006, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Sure, but sometimes that requires the government to protect its citizens from itself, to prevent less responsible people from abusing the power they receive.

And, how is this not being done?

quote:


Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances.

It has alternative checks and balances. It isn't a free-reign system. Furthermore, information developed can only be used for the purpose for which they attempted to develop it in the first place, and after a subpeona concurs with it.

quote:


Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.

So... forget about "innocent until proven guilty" (a cornerstone of our nation).

Maybe we should put freedom itself in check, because some people will certainly abuse it.

WAIT a second, we ARE doing that! Except, the government has found a way to do that WITHOUT eroding your rights!

Hey, you made a great point, except I'm not sure its the point you were trying to make.

Again, when you (or anyone) can show an American citizen who's rights are taken away, I'll think that SOMEONE abused their power and want them held accountable. But I won't act against someone who hasn't yet abused anything.

Innocent until proven guilty, I would hope. Heck, what you're saying is even worse than violating that cornerstone of freedom: guilty BEFORE committing the crime.

Minority Report anyone? Now THAT would be a case of lost freedom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

Isn't the act in question dealing with the NSL... which doesnÔÇÖt have the normal checks and balances.

It has alternative checks and balances.


Such as?

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Furthermore, information developed can only be used for the purpose for which they attempted to develop it in the first place, and after a subpeona concurs with it.

The article implies that NSL do not have such a requirement.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

Hardly, someone in the government will eventually abuse the power they have. Therefore, laws are made in part to help reduce this abuse by adding checks and balances; the NSL has no such safety measures.

So... forget about "innocent until proven guilty" (a cornerstone of our nation).

Maybe we should put freedom itself in check, because some people will certainly abuse it.

WAIT a second, we ARE doing that! Except, the government has found a way to do that WITHOUT eroding your rights!

Hey, you made a great point, except I'm not sure its the point you were trying to make.

Again, when you (or anyone) can show an American citizen who's rights are taken away, I'll think that SOMEONE abused their power and want them held accountable. But I won't act against someone who hasn't yet abused anything.

Innocent until proven guilty, I would hope. Heck, what you're saying is even worse than violating that cornerstone of freedom: guilty BEFORE committing the crime.

Minority Report anyone? Now THAT would be a case of lost freedom...


You interpreted that horribly wrong. What I am in effect saying is the same as saying that someone will eventually commit theft or murder and so we (being society) require ways to help reduce such occurrences as well as catch and punish such people.

I am not saying guilty until proven innocence; I am being realistic by saying someone will be guilty of a transgression and so there must be ways to reduce such occurrences.

You actually brought up an excellent example with Minority Report. It was a good idea in theory (would prevent murders and such) but was used improperly and did not have proper checks and balances to prevent its abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Such as?

Are you winging it or are you actually learning what is going on?

Such as subpeonas being required prior to any action taken against any suspect.

This is public knowledge and widely available. Please don't make me do research for you.

quote:


The article implies that NSL do not have such a requirement.
The article implies that NSL do not have such a requirement.

Go back to my first post in this thread and read what I wrote regarding the article being an "op-ed".

Being that it was an op-ed piece, it can "imply" whatever it wants. Doesn't make it accurate.

In any case, the argument against a NSL is the same used against most other implications of the Patriot Act: that the government doesn't need a subpeona to demand information.

But, EVEN WITH a NSL, you would STILL NEED A SUBPEONA to use the information developed in a courtroom. There really isn't any "oddity" to it.

quote:


You interpreted that horribly wrong. What I am in effect saying is the same as saying that someone will eventually commit theft or murder and so we (being society) require ways to help reduce such occurrences as well as catch and punish such people.

Uhhh, not really. Judging by what you just wrote, you were interpreting ME wrong.

You're saying society should take steps to prevent murders, which I agree with.

Relative to the discussion, you're saying society should take steps to prevent the government abusing powers. I also agree with that.

The steps, however, which you imply taking to prevent government abuse of power is to REMOVE the power.

To "remove the power" of someone to commit murder is to remove everyone's freedom to be among society. Obviously, that is unacceptable.

So, therefore, I'm talking about a middle ground, such as congressional oversight (which EXISTS currently). YOU, on the other hand, SAID that checks and balances do NOT exist under the NSL, which is SUMMARILY FALSE.

How do I know that there are checks-and-balances to the NSL? Did you READ the article?

Let me make it clear: THE LIBRARIANS WON!!!

Being able to contest a NSL and WIN rather than being summarily forced to comply is PROOF THAT THERE ARE A SERIES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO IT. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seriously, man, how could that have gotten past you?

quote:


I am not saying guilty until proven innocence; I am being realistic by saying someone will be guilty of a transgression and so there must be ways to reduce such occurrences.

I agree... and society's way of reducing such an occurrence is the justice system.

Your solution is to get rid of the NSL system all-together, because there isn't a way to prevent its abuse due to a lack of checks-and-balance to it. That argument is simply wrong because, due to the librarians defeating the NSL, there CLEARLY is a way to assure the integrity of the system.

quote:


You actually brought up an excellent example with Minority Report. It was a good idea in theory (would prevent murders and such) but was used improperly and did not have proper checks and balances to prevent its abuse.

Right. And did Tom Cruise go to a US District Court to fight his "conviction" in that movie?

The problem with this thread is that people are actually trying to argue against the "all-powerful" government, when the very topic itself PROVES that the checks-and-balances that everyone seems to be requiring, actually exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I got in trouble during high school because they said my reading list consisted of too much Tom Clancy after Columbine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

The steps, however, which you imply taking to prevent government abuse of power is to REMOVE the power.

To "remove the power" of someone to commit murder is to remove everyone's freedom to be among society. Obviously, that is unacceptable.


That isn't what I am suggesting at all.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

So, therefore, I'm talking about a middle ground, such as congressional oversight (which EXISTS currently). YOU, on the other hand, SAID that checks and balances do NOT exist under the NSL, which is SUMMARILY FALSE.

How do I know that there are checks-and-balances to the NSL? Did you READ the article?

Let me make it clear:
THE LIBRARIANS WON!!!

Being able to contest a NSL and WIN rather than being summarily forced to comply is PROOF THAT THERE ARE A SERIES OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO IT. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


That does not prove that there are sufficient checks and balences in the system at all. The only reason they won was because the FBI decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue with the investigation through the NSL. This only proves that it has checks and balences any other law has (a large group of people going against it).

In case it isn't clear (which wouldn't be particularly surprising) I am arguing that the NSL has insufficient (as obviously I was incorrect in the belief that it had none) checks and balances (read: lack of court overview). Obviously, the gag order part goes against the American Constitution (which seems to be the part the librarians didn't like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


That isn't what I am suggesting at all.

Total cop-out, considering you didn't feel it necessary to tell me what you're suggesting then.

In fact, I think it is EXACTLY what you were suggesting, but you're afraid to admit it because ... well, who knows why?

I had enough respect for you to try to reiterate what your point was; please share the same respect for me.

quote:


That does not prove that there are sufficient checks and balences in the system at all. The only reason they won was because the FBI decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue with the investigation through the NSL.

Wow. I know you're not THAT dense. WHY, per se, do you think the FBI gave up on the investigation?

Dude, READ THE ARTICLE SLOWLY and the actual NEWS ARTICLE that supports it, then step up to the plate. I mean, I've already done the research for you ... the least you could do is not try to "fool" me with convoluted logic.

quote:


This only proves that it has checks and balences any other law has (a large group of people going against it).

Wow, AGAIN. Then you must hate our system of GOVERNMENT itself. If that's the case, than you're not someone I wish to discuss the merits of ANY governmental policy with.

Let me paraphrase your argument: "Although EVERYTHING else in government has the same checks-and-balances, it isn't good enough for this ONE thing."

That is MANIFESTLY SILLY.

quote:


In case it isn't clear (which wouldn't be particularly surprising) I am arguing that the NSL has insufficient (as obviously I was incorrect in the belief that it had none) checks and balances (read: lack of court overview).[/qoute]Read: Librarians won through court overview.
Obviously, the gag order part goes against the American Constitution (which seems to be the part the librarians didn't like).

Umm, the Constitution is WIDELY available. Therefore, I would like you to show me a part of the Constitution that is against the "gag order".

The FACT is, the Constitution does NOT prohibit a "gag order" during litigation.

Dude, I feel bad that I gave you credit. On the one hand, you seem to be able to understand when a flaw in your argument is illuminated. On the other hand, you started offering fiction to support your arguments AFTER they've been debunked.

Seriously, offer some substantial reason why the NSL is a violation of Constitutional rights or give it the credit it deserves. I mean, when I responded to your arguments I gave them the respect of me responding to ALL of them.

Give me the same respect, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

In fact, I think it is EXACTLY what you were suggesting, but you're afraid to admit it because ... well, who knows why?

I am suggesting that the law must go through the same procedures most (may be wrong on that) searches require: court-person (magistrate or whatever the title is) look over.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Wow. I know you're not THAT dense. WHY, per se, do you think the FBI gave up on the investigation?

Dude, READ THE ARTICLE SLOWLY and the actual NEWS ARTICLE that supports it, then step up to the plate. I mean, I've already done the research for you ... the least you could do is not try to "fool" me with convoluted logic.


A lower court said it was unconstitutional. Then it was appealed to a higher court but before that got anywhere the FBI dropped it, probably because they didn't want the attention.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Wow, AGAIN. Then you must hate our system of GOVERNMENT itself. If that's the case, than you're not someone I wish to discuss the merits of ANY governmental policy with.


Incorrect

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Let me paraphrase your argument: "Although EVERYTHING else in government has the same checks-and-balances, it isn't good enough for this ONE thing."


No, I'm saying that particular check and balence is inusffient, in fact, I think I'm repeating myself.

And there are plenty of things that have checks and balences on top of the people disagreeing: search warrant requests (last I heard anyways), bringing new laws into force, amending a law or the constitution etc.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Umm, the Constitution is WIDELY available. Therefore, I would like you to show me a part of the Constitution that is against the "gag order".

The FACT is, the Constitution does NOT prohibit a "gag order" during litigation.

Dude, I feel bad that I gave you credit. On the one hand, you seem to be able to understand when a flaw in your argument is illuminated. On the other hand, you started offering fiction to support your arguments AFTER they've been debunked.

Seriously, offer some substantial reason why the NSL is a violation of Constitutional rights or give it the credit it deserves. I mean, when I responded to your arguments I gave them the respect of me responding to ALL of them.


quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech
, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Plus the lower court agreed with the librarians that the gag order was unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering you like to pick and choose what to respond to, I'll simply pick the most ludicrous argument you made and respond to it.

I said that the Constitution does NOT prohibit a gag-order during litigation and you tried to respond by quoting the First Ammendment. Too bad you didn't read it, first...

quote:


Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A "gag-order" is NOT a "law" passed by Congress. The Constitution specifically grants the judiciary the right to impose a "gag-order" during pending and proceeding litigation.

Ever hear of a sequestered jury? Has the justice system been violation the Constitution all along?

Nope.

Also, the Executive Branch can impose a a "gag-order" if it believes national security interests are served by doing so. So can the Legislative Branch.

"Freedom of Speech" is a fairly restricted freedom. Along with not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater, there are other common-sense restrictions. One can't commit libel, slander, break classifications, etc.

Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" refers not to reporting facts; rather, it refers to opinions not being suppressed. If it meant you could say ANYTHING, one could not sequester a jury and one would be allowed to commit libel, slander, etc...

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" refers not to reporting facts; rather, it refers to opinions not being suppressed.

Almost without exception, when somebody expresses an opinion, somebody else will demand that it be backed up with facts.

Pretty interesting how you do that if facts are not allowed to be published. Kind'a waters down the arguement ... makes the opposition look foolish. Fanatical. Spouting lies.

Perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Considering you like to pick and choose what to respond to, I'll simply pick the most ludicrous argument you made and respond to it.


The only parts in my previous post that I took out were the parts that were apart of the same topic and so I assumed only apart of it was needed for you to understand which point I was responding to. Either I was wrong, or you wanted me to respond to all the previous points.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I said that the Constitution does NOT prohibit a gag-order during litigation and you tried to respond by quoting the First Ammendment. Too bad you didn't read it, first...


Well, it requires a law in order to give such powers (see below).

quote:

Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

A "gag-order" is NOT a "law" passed by Congress. The Constitution specifically grants the judiciary the right to impose a "gag-order" during pending and proceeding litigation.

Also, the Executive Branch can impose a a "gag-order" if it believes national security interests are served by doing so. So can the Legislative Branch.


IÔÇÖm not finding a clause that states this.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Ever hear of a sequestered jury? Has the justice system been violation the Constitution all along?

Nope.

(moved as it fits in the same section)

"Freedom of Speech" is a fairly restricted freedom. Along with not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater, there are other common-sense restrictions. One can't commit libel, slander, break classifications, etc.

Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" refers not to reporting facts; rather, it refers to opinions not being suppressed. If it meant you could say ANYTHING, one could not sequester a jury and one would be allowed to commit libel, slander, etc...


Technically, it does mean to allow whoever to saw whatever they want. However, courts have ruled that certain laws can be allowed even though they infringe upon this (in most cases, I would agree they are reasonable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×