downstairs: But all of the core freedoms (speech, etc.) are in place and defended well.

You really believe that? Ok, lets review. The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall pass no law ..." it does not say some laws, it does not say a law that is in the interest of society, it does not say that commercial speech is allowed to be regulated, it says no law. Yet there are laws, lots of them in fact.

FCC regulates what can be said/shown on tv/radio
FDA regulates medical claims (cheerios are going to be classified a drug for saying oat lowers cholesterol even though the claim is not in dispute, its a medical claim so FDA permission must be paid for)
FTC regulates advertising
SEC regulates comments in investing related things
FBI investigates some other types of speech
prior restraint allows them to ban certain subjects entirely (popular mechanics wanted to publish how to make a nuke in the 1970s and couldnt because that is covered by prior restraint)
DEA goes after people who advertise gardening items even if those items are not illegal or advertised for illegal purposes (mainly hydroponic sellers)
Biden and Feinstein passed legislation years ago that limits the ability to discuss making fireworks (or really large fireworks which are sometimes called bombs)
You have had several failed attempts to pass the CDA
ITAR restricted the press aspect of cryptography to a great degree, now to a minor degree (electronic copies are sketchy, paper printed copies are accepted)
There are several more examples.

If you want these laws, there is a ratification section in the constitution to allow for these laws, the reality is that they are not needed. If someone advertises fradulently, then you can go after them for the underlying fraud without going after them for the speech related to the fraud. With the FDA stuff, note I was not talking about the medication only the advertisement/printed materials about the medication or a condition, and if someone is selling a medicine that can still be regulated without going after them for the speech part of it. Most of these things can be covered by other laws yet they sought to ban types of speech, so that is not entirely in check.

Look at the 4th amendment violations in DUI checkpoints (I posted a link in a few posts above this). There are other 4th amendment violations that constantly are happening.

About half the states are seizing unused gift cards and keeping the money as a fund raiser, this violates the 5th amendment "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The second amendment has a lot of "infringement" in it, even though it clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

And the 10th amendment is routinely violated, this is the one that says that the federal government is the smallest least powerful government in the nation and the states have more powers and rights than the feds do. this is of course to prevent a tyrannical government.

I have not even gotten into the other 17 amendments or the body of the constitution itself (note 21 cancels out 18 so you could say 15 others but meh).

So if those core freedoms are in tact, how much has to be taken away before they no longer are in tact? They are not followed as originally written.

rufus-t-firefly: Milkbeer: That's not true, a hispanic women have better judgement than a white male.

Apparently they have a better grasp of singular vs. plural nouns.

Not really. Listen to some as they speak.

nicksteel: Bauer: "We were not at war"

really?

our foreign policy begs to differ.

since ww2, and probably well before that...our 'foreign policy' has been to wage a covert war of conquest and empire.

where have you been?

-on the sleepboat?

it's business as usual...under the dome.

where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??

FlashHarry: when i brought up the phrase "...and the pursuit of happiness" in a gay marriage debate here on fark, a fark "conservative" told me straight-faced that the key word there is "pursuit" - as in, "all y'all gheys can pursue equality all you want - but nobody's saying you're actually gonna get it!"

Question from the audience: How can you tell someone "told you straight-faced" in a text chat?

saborlas...capital letters are the vanity of man.

and you can suck it.

-the way i roll...is the way i roll.

my artistic grace on fark will not cease due to your weak prose.

-so there.

sit in judgement of your own hypocrisy.

/and in the 'flavour' of the 'iranian revolutionary' threads...

when you disagree with me...you are trolling me!!!

-stop it.

neenerist: Lord Snoopy's G.P.E.H.: There's no hate like revolutionary hate.


'cause a revolutionary hate don't stop:

Bauer: saborlas...capital letters are the vanity of man.
and you can suck it.
-the way i roll...is the way i roll.
my artistic grace on fark will not cease due to your weak prose.
-so there.
sit in judgement of your own hypocrisy.
/and in the 'flavour' of the 'iranian revolutionary' threads...
when you disagree with me...you are trolling me!!!
-stop it.

Whargarrbl whargarr .... Flavour? FLAVOUR?

Hulk Smash!

jjorsett: What, you had no parents?

Note the big "C". those nitpicking the separate of church and state should probably start with this little snippet. I agree that we are all, by the very nature of our existence, due the freedoms listed... however there's a lot of people that take that "Creator" line and try to use it against Islam, against non-christians, and pretty much anyone that doesn't believe in the "Big C".

So there was a loud boom his morning and now there is a crater in the middle of the street. I'm more pissed that those kids can get better firewarks than me than the hole in the street!

"where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??"...nicksteel, 2009, farker.

-remember this day boys...for it will be yours for all time.

wtf!?!

i'll have what your smoking.

trixter_nl: 006andahalf: kronicfeld: *Except for negroes and women.

and the gheys
and in certain cases, mesicans, japs, chinks, wops, spics, jews, and greasers.

you forgot native americans, ya know the people that were here 16000 years before the US.

Nice try, troll. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

We've become that which we fought against.

Grouchy Old Bear: FlashHarry: when i brought up the phrase "...and the pursuit of happiness" in a gay marriage debate here on fark, a fark "conservative" told me straight-faced that the key word there is "pursuit" - as in, "all y'all gheys can pursue equality all you want - but nobody's saying you're actually gonna get it!"

Question from the audience: How can you tell someone "told you straight-faced" in a text chat?

Because he wasn't making the ghey face while he typed it?

Dawg47: trixter_nl: 006andahalf: kronicfeld: *Except for negroes and women.

and the gheys
and in certain cases, mesicans, japs, chinks, wops, spics, jews, and greasers.

you forgot native americans, ya know the people that were here 16000 years before the US.

Nice try, troll. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

oh yeah I forgot, after all the hebrew word 'yom' means only day (its the word in the original texts that was translated to 'day' in genesis 1:1-7). I should follow those 15th century bishops a bit more when they try to predict the end of the world.

-aidan...lol.

what's wrong with seatbelt legislation?

American Freedom:

I have the Freedom to drive 100 miles down to Mexico, pick up some Mexican fireworks, drive back home and set them off illegally to celebrate get arrested for my freedoms. God Bless... Mexico?

At least North Korea is showing spirit, Seven fireworks launched just for US!

at80eighty: what's wrong with seatbelt legislation?

many people claim that it takes away their ability to choose just to make insurance companies happier and more profitable. I think they are silly, there should be no choice in what you do with your life when corporate profits are at stake, if it were not for large corporations and their lobby money we would fall into anarchy with a government incapable of passing a single law. so we are far better off helping corporations bottom line no matter the cost to personal choice, personal income, or personal property.

what_now
Did you have to sleep in a little room with 160000 other dudes in stacks of three?

On my last ship I was in the Engineering Department, our berthing was a room about 50' x 30'. In that 1500 sq. ft. there were 72 of us. And in the news was the whining and moaning about prison overcrowding. We weren't sympathetic.

trixter_nl: If you want these laws, there is a ratification section in the constitution to allow for these laws, the reality is that they are not needed. If someone advertises fradulently, then you can go after them for the underlying fraud without going after them for the speech related to the fraud. With the FDA stuff, note I was not talking about the medication only the advertisement/printed materials about the medication or a condition, and if someone is selling a medicine that can still be regulated without going after them for the speech part of it. Most of these things can be covered by other laws yet they sought to ban types of speech, so that is not entirely in check.

The first amendment:
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.

you're claiming that by regulating medicinal claims about goods for sale, the FDA is violating the 1st, am-i-right?


The FDA was originally mandated by a law in 1906 to protect the public from adulterated and misbranded goods. So you are saying that law is unconstitutional. but you should realize that it was created to protect people from patent medicine salesmen who were doing things like telling mothers to give colicky babies potions full of things like chloroform and alcohol, killing some of them (it's still happening in Africa, you can google to find it). I don't think claiming something deadly as safe for people to consume is protected free speech. Likewise, making false calims of effectiveness is wrong, even if the medicine is harmless. Please make that argument a little better, if you can. It will get shot down, much like yelling "fire" in a movie theater.


And in spite of the FDA, you can turn on your TV and see all sorts of things that are supposed to give men bigger penises and melt fat away (not both at once). I don't think the FDA is infringing on your freedom of speech much right now.

buzzvert: evilgreg: Of course. Does the sun care whether you believe in it? It shines on the believers and nonbelievers alike.

Well, that's the problem... the whole statement assumes the existence of a Creator, which quite frankly, can't stand up in a court of law due to lack of even circumstantial evidence.

I didn't argue that point one way or the other. The question seemed to assume the possible (at least) presence of a Creator, so I answered on that basis. :)

Wraithbane: evilgreg
Not a freakin' exhorbitant, useless monument.

The USS Arizona would like to give you a big old bag to keep all your fail in.

Fair enough. (Fail enough?)

So let's rebuild the Twin Towers with a monument on the grounds. How's that?

TheBigBadCrystallineEntity: Bauer: "We were not at war"

really?

our foreign policy begs to differ.

since ww2, and probably well before that...our 'foreign policy' has been to wage a covert war of conquest and empire.

where have you been?

-on the sleepboat?

it's business as usual...under the dome.

"Eat an M-80 and die."

-you should be banned for that.

wishing me death, and all.

i've never wished anyone death on fark.

The_Philosopher_King: corporate mustache: 006andahalf: kronicfeld: *Except for negroes and women.

and the gheys
and in certain cases, mesicans, japs, chinks, wops, spics, jews, and greasers.


Hey, don't forget us Micks.

You also left out the Catholics.

Don't forget Polacks!

/Cześć
//Not Polish, and don't hate them

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams


And we call America a democracy? IT'S A REPUBLIC!

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

Wow, Boobies is a troll. I'm impressed.

Grouchy Old Bear: Question from the audience: How can you tell someone "told you straight-faced" in a text chat?

The key word there is "pursuit" - as in, all you queers can pursue equality all you want - but nobody's saying you're actually gonna get it!

Animatronik: trixter_nl: If you want these laws, there is a ratification section in the constitution to allow for these laws, the reality is that they are not needed. If someone advertises fradulently, then you can go after them for the underlying fraud without going after them for the speech related to the fraud. With the FDA stuff, note I was not talking about the medication only the advertisement/printed materials about the medication or a condition, and if someone is selling a medicine that can still be regulated without going after them for the speech part of it. Most of these things can be covered by other laws yet they sought to ban types of speech, so that is not entirely in check.

The first amendment:
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.

you're claiming that by regulating medicinal claims about goods for sale, the FDA is violating the 1st, am-i-right?


The FDA was originally mandated by a law in 1906 to protect the public from adulterated and misbranded goods.


Ahh but the claims spoken or printed and the product that may or may not be tainted are different. That is the point I was trying to make. They can regulate the physical product without violating the first amendment, but the speech clearly says "congress shall pass no law.." not "congress shall pass no law except when it comes to things they think are really important".


So you are saying that law is unconstitutional. but you should realize that it was created to protect people from patent medicine salesmen who were doing things like telling mothers to give colicky babies potions full of things like chloroform and alcohol, killing some of them (it's still happening in Africa, you can google to find it).

Again you confuse selling a bad product (not covered) with speech about that product (which is covered). There is a big difference between the two, something that should be obvious, but it seems it is not.


And in spite of the FDA, you can turn on your TV and see all sorts of things that are supposed to give men bigger penises and melt fat away (not both at once). I don't think the FDA is infringing on your freedom of speech much right now.

read those closer, they have disclaimers because of the FDA stuff, and market it as a supplement because those are unregulated. If they cross the line and say that they are doing something that diagnoses or treats a medical condition then they have to get permission. A small penis or a fat ass are not currently listed as a medical condition, but that can instantly change if the FDA decides to classify them as such.

If they make a claim like cheerios did with "cheerios lowers chelosterol" then they are making a medical claim and have to get approved by the FDA for the product and have their speech regulated until they get government permission to make such a claim. Note in this case the FDA does not dispute the claim at all, but because the statement is made, the FDA wants millions of dollars to test whether or not cheerios contain oat, and if it does then they would be allowed to do that, although they would then be classified as a medicine not a breakfast cereal. Cheerios has been ordered to no longer say they lower cholesterol, even though the FDA admits that the claim is true.

Again my point is not that the products should not be regulated, it is that the speech/press should not be until there is a constitutional amendment to allow it. If a dangerous product is sold you can still go after people for that, without going after them for what they said about it. It would require 2 things though, 1. following the constitution instead of ignoring it when its not convenient, and 2. actually understanding that there is a difference between the product and the speech/press about that product.

Weaver95: what_now: You shush. Have a hot dog, a beer, and a sparkler.

I don't think my homeowners association would allow something like that.

You got me laughing.

Good one.

Wraithbane: evilgreg
Not a freakin' exhorbitant, useless monument.

The USS Arizona would like to give you a big old bag to keep all your fail in.

I wouldn't call the monument at the Arizona 'exorbitant'. It is certainly not anything like what is being constructed in NYC...

trixter_nl: many people claim that it takes away their ability to choose just to make insurance companies happier and more profitable.

haha , thing is I'm pretty lax about buckling up , but even I think its just a matter of your own personal safety - corporate profits are just independent of that

i love you, filter.

-i really do.

This is the first 4th of July I am ashamed to be a american. We have handed this country to a statist marxist facist and only God knows if it will be recognizable in fouryears. God bless america, but I am afraid i'll be saying "God protect america" within a month or two. and with sara palin stepping down i dont know if anyone will protect us.

trixter_nl: it is that the speech/press should not be until there is a constitutional amendment to allow it.

the supreme court says these kinds of rules are legal, and that the first amendment is not to be interpreted 100% literally. so by definition, they aren't unconstitutional.

Sygerrik: This is the first 4th of July I am ashamed to be a american. We have handed this country to a statist marxist facist and only God knows if it will be recognizable in fouryears. God bless america, but I am afraid i'll be saying "God protect america" within a month or two. and with sara palin stepping down i dont know if anyone will protect us.

2/10. If you had left out the Sarah Palin remark, you may have had a few bites...

MrPoopyPants: With all its problems, still no place I'd rather live.

/time to get drunk on piss beer and burn things
//just like the founders would have wanted

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Benjamin Franklin

Fark Yeah! Happy Fourth of July everyone!

rocinante721: Farking hilarious!

Weaver95: I have great difficulty reconciling concepts such as the Patriot act, seatbelt legislation, wall street bailouts, RIAA's perversion of US copyright law and the entire War on Drugs with the philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

If you ask me, we've lost our way. we're no longer 'free'. we've been TOLD we're free, but we need permits for everything and today we're going to have to run a gauntlet of drunk driving checkpoints to get around town. Not to mention the fact that the NSA and DHS are going to tap our phones to make sure nobody blows up the statue of Liberty tonight. So I don't think we're 'free'. I think we decidedly less free than we've ever been at any time before in the history of this country.

just my .02 cents.

Weaver95 I can't help but read your post and think of Steppenwolf's Monster/Suicide/America. Hell, I can't read any of your posts and not think of that song.

If Fox News was around in 1776 they would be deriding the founding fathers for being LIBERALS.

at80eighty: trixter_nl: many people claim that it takes away their ability to choose just to make insurance companies happier and more profitable.

haha , thing is I'm pretty lax about buckling up , but even I think its just a matter of your own personal safety - corporate profits are just independent of that

if its the government's job to protect you then they should make all corners round, they should outlaw cancer (it kills more people than cars!) they should do a lot more, and really it would not be fun to live in a place where you are protected from everything everywhere just because it might be dangerous. I personally believe that it is not the governments role to protect me from everything everywhere, I think that it is my personal responsibility to do that for myself. With that said I wear my seatbelt all the time. When you start saying someone else is responsible for you and your safety, then any time you are unsafe, you have someone to blame other than yourself for getting into that situation. this results in lawsuits, and people blaming video games and TV for children that have bad parents.

mrapier: Damn you all are buzzkills, can't we just BBQ and watch baseball and listen to Sinatra today?

HEAR HEAR

buzzvert: If I don't believe in a Creator, do I still have certain unalienable rights?

DNA is my Creator.

evilgreg: buzzvert: If I don't believe in a Creator, do I still have certain unalienable rights?

Of course. Does the sun care whether you believe in it? It shines on the believers and nonbelievers alike.

only you can measure and provide evidence for sunshine's existence.

/this is not the right thread for this argument.

YouWinAgainGravity: trixter_nl: it is that the speech/press should not be until there is a constitutional amendment to allow it.

the supreme court says these kinds of rules are legal, and that the first amendment is not to be interpreted 100% literally. so by definition, they aren't unconstitutional.

Yes, the court at one time also said that slaves were not whole people (Dredd), they said a lot of things that many wont agree with. Resting in the oligarchy that can change the constitution just because they said so (note their opinion that they are superior to the constitution and can change it without ratification appears nowhere in the constitution, the document that gives them their power).

If they can just interpret it however they want, why even have it? Why not just formally move to an oligarchy where they can decide on what freedoms people can have and if they change their minds at a later date you no longer have that freedom. In essence that is what we have, yet people insist they have guaranteed freedoms, when in fact they no longer do because people support the court reinterpreting the constitution at will.

So your argument that because the court said it, does not make it right.

Bauer: "where is this empire that we have built? I don't see it. Where are these lands that we have conquered??"...nicksteel, 2009, farker.

-remember this day boys...for it will be yours for all time.

wtf!?!

i'll have what your smoking.

I guess that means that you cannot answer my question. I didn't think you could. Not honestly.

Thing is...all people are not fundamentally equal. Some are disadvantaged from birth - physicaly, emotionally, financially. Some are just a whole lot dummer than others. Some become disadvantaged later. Some of this can be be fixed, some of it can't, even if you throw millions of dollars at it. Its better to not waste the money on a problem that cannot be fixed when you can use that money to help every one else compensate (be even stronger, better) because of those disadvantaged.

kronicfeld: *Except for negroes and women.

and the Irish