If you're Rand Paul, you get to exercise your First Amendment rights on the floor of the Senate--until your bladder can't take it any more. Citizens elsewhere in America, good luck with that.
A federal district court has ordered the public library in Salem, Missouri to stop blocking patrons' access to websites relating to minority religions, which web filters had at times apparently classified as "occult" or "criminal,"... A Salem resident complained that she couldn't get onto websites about Native American religions and Wiccan faith.
Tony Rothert, legal director for the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, told The Riverfront Times, "Libraries do not have a license to censor viewpoints they disagree with. Viewpoint discrimination should not be tolerated."
Meanwhile, the Dallas Observer reports:
...the city has agreed to barricade and shut down Dealey Plaza for two weeks bracketing the November 22 anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's murder in 1963. ...The city's stated goal is to keep Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists away from the immense hordes of international press that city leaders fear will show up for the event.
Will the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination bring a surge of, let's say, unpopular speech to Dallas? Absolutely. But it should still be protected, just like when Rand Paul tries to compare President Obama to Hitler. That's why the First Amendment is first.
Leave a Comment:
How will Dallas keep people out of Dealey Plaza? I thought that they had completely obliterated the site ?
Nope. It looks virtually identical to how it was in 1963.
Thanks , I wasn't aware of the preservation/restoration efforts of the last ten years.
The image above is quite beautiful.
It should be noted that the 1st amendment does not grant us the right of free speech, or the right to worship as we choose, or the right to be a journalist, or the right to peacefully assemble.
Rather it says,
So since the 1st amendment prohibits Congress from making free speech illegal, then how do we know we have the right of free speech?
The answer was summed up quite well by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #84. Ironically, this was his reasoning for not having any Bill of Rights at all.
Under this line of thinking, we have the right of free speech, simply because we are endowed with those rights at birth. It therefore follows that we are endowed at birth with a number of other rights as well.
never enumerate your rights. leave one off the list and you lose it.
enumerating rights also allows people to declare their rights are absolutely above modification by law to provide for protection from outrageous use of ones rights.
The Federalist Papers are GREAT! They are pretty thick reading, (at least for me, just an old, retired carpenter) partly because they use an older form of English, but if you plow through them you get a very clear idea of what the "Founding Fathers" were trying to accomplish with the Constitution.
Read #29 (and #26-#28 for groundwork) regarding what the "Founding Fathers" thought about the @nd Amendment. They were VERY clear about what they wanted and expected. (Hint: it's not anything like what 2nd amendment right advocates think and preach).
Thanks for pointing out Federalist #84.
Rand Paul described the Bush administration to a tee. It was G.W. that initiated the patriot act, had Americans whisked away to Gitmo without a trial, gave us der fatherland uh I mean homeland security, wire tapped without warrants,put Americans on a no fly list and got us to accept false security for loss of liberty.
Yes, you're right. Then, Obama signed on to the same law by extending it. And upped the ante from capture and detainment to "plug them before they can get their hands up to surrender". Would have been much cleaner if they'd have dropped a grenade in saddam's hole as opposed to dragging him out and giving him due process.
I agree. I wonder what the right would do if he got rid of all of it? Would the repugs in Congress go along with it or start yelling about him being unpatriotic?
Note though that water boarding is not going on and that most of the gitmo prisoners have been either released or given hearings.
Yes though Obama should have ended it all and ended faith based forced tithes as well. Maybe the next president will? Maybe Hillary?
Waterboarding isn't needed with drones...
Not to defend the City of Dallas here, but it's well-established that government place reasonable limitations on the time, place, and manner of public speech without violating the First Amendment. Basically, you don't get to use free speech as an excuse to disrupt public events or disturb everyone else's peace and quiet. That's why protesters at political conventions can get restricted to "free speech zones." Time, place, and manner limits just have to be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored, (3) serve a significant government interest, and (4) leave ample opportunity for speakers to communicate their messages.
The Dallas restrictions may or may not survive that scrutiny, but it's not necessarily unreasonable to act to keep the assassination site free from disruption on the 50th anniversary of the murder. I would also be deeply, deeply skeptical that the city is literally planning to barricade Dealey Plaza for two full weeks. Way too much vehicle traffic, plus I'm sure they're well aware of the tourist money that's going to be spent on the anniversary to mess it up like that.
Sociedades en el pasado, inclusive dentro de los Estados Unidos, cometian atrocidades en contra de personas diferentes a ellos mientras al mismo tiempo profesando democracia y derechos universales , los cuales en practica, han sido reservados para estos mismos. Una cosa es lo que profesamos. Otra es lo que actualmente hacemos. En el caso de los derechos que las primeras 10 enmiendas a La constitucion Federal garantiza, por muchos años eso solo era una garantia para el Europeo. Los demas residentes de este pais apenas gozan del derecho a votar, solo si el Partido Republicano se encuentra inmobilizado a actuar para prevenirlo. De los ciudadanos que residen en territorios de Los Estados Unidos, ¿cuantos tienen derecho a votar por su congreso o su presidente national?El voto es nuestra forma de darle legitimidad a la democracia de nuestro pais. Mientras unos gozan del derecho mientras otros son victimas de la dictadura colectiva del estado unidense europeo y algunos aliados de color.
I just can not believe that the headline to this post isn't "The Salem Witchcraft Trial." I'm not really not Wiccans are witches but I mean really how often does a docket contain a joke.
At this point, MSNBC, we should all object to the term "conpiracy theorist" around the JFK assassination.
In the 70e, A second well known government investigation of the murder came to different conclusions than the original panel put togeather in 1964. The "House Select Committee on Assaasinations" concluded that THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY TO KILL JFK.
The term "conspiracy theorist" in pop culture is used to point out someone who is 'out there" and believes bizarre things, first of all.
Second of all, things aren't usually called a theory when the vast propoderance of findings, conclussions evidence support it difinitively over many years. So we are taught evolution in (most of) our schools as it has been backed up for decades by research. She it's officially a "theory" but it's very close to fact.
The final "investigation" was impanelled in the 90s and was charged with finding, organizing, declassifying and realeasing documents about the JFK assassination. They also gathered data themselves in the form of depositions from eye witnesses. This was called the ARRB-Assasinations Record Review Board. (their report is available online).
In the assassination of JFK, those who say a lone gunman did all the shooting behind (ie those blame Lee Oswald as the sole gunman, shooting from the Texas Schoolbook Depository) MUST prove that there were NO SHOTS FROM ANYWHERE ELSE> such as from the front or either side.
Any other shot present that did not come from the TSBD-ie did not come from behind-- confirms a conspiracy...because conspiracy is just two or more people plotting (or shooting at) the President.
The group in the 90s -ARRB- was not supposed to "draw conclussions" just gather and release data. The did find out that the final report of Warren Commission (1964) lied in their report...saying that the doctors that treated the President as he was dying said he had been shot from the back. The ARRB found the transcrips of the doctors original testimony to the Warren commission and it was different than the report. The 1964 doctor's testimony said repeatedly that the back of the skull of the President was blown out in a huge hole. The Secret Serviceman who lied on top of the President protecting him (too late) with his body also says the back of his skull was blown out in a big hole.
These doctors were re-interviewed in the 90s and gave the same story.
You see, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds. Huge gaping hole only in the back means a shot from the front.
Ergo not all shots came from where the 'lone gunman" was supposed to be, behind the limo when it was shot at. If even one shot came from somewhere else, it is a conspiracy...of at least 2 people.
Again, Oswald was never tried. He never got his day in court. I hate the crime they say he committed but it is a matter of public record that within an hour of they shooting they were broadcasting they "caught the lone gunman". I think that is rather quick to draw conclussions and quick to do a thorough investigation. Did you know that Oswald never had a lawyer even though he was held for 3 days? He was shot on national televiion while in Police custody.
To assume Oswald was guilty because ONE of three (the earliest one) official investigationssay he was, is naive. It is not some deluded off the wall idea. You can THINK he was the sole guilty party but you have to stay open to WHAT HAPPENED REALLY . If you care to have an opinion about this assassination you need to investigate.
There is enough data now thanks to the ARRB to prove that Oswald could not have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did you know that Oswalld's face was negative for the kind of residue they find if you shoot a rifle...it should be on face and hands of anyone who shot a rifle...and that's what they were accusing him of. THAT can easily be found not as hearsay but in official government documents.
THere is your reasonable doubt in front of your face. The testing for powder residue actually exonerates Oswald from the scenariio they were pushing...shooting a rifle.