Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Crunch time for SCOTUS as 17 cases are still undecided. Here's a rundown of what we get to look forward to   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 178
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2014 at 10:07 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-16 08:17:08 AM  
An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.
 
2014-06-16 08:23:05 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling
 
2014-06-16 08:47:03 AM  
Sotomayor throws like a girl.
 
2014-06-16 08:54:38 AM  

somedude210: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling


I thought you two were kidding. I don't want to even know how it got this far.

[motherofgod.jpg]
 
2014-06-16 09:05:12 AM  

enry: somedude210: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling

I thought you two were kidding. I don't want to even know how it got this far.

[motherofgod.jpg]


I wouldn't be surprised if the abortion protesting liars actually won.

- Abortion clinic buffer zones: Abortion opponents are challenging as a violation of their free speech rights a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot (10.5-meter) protest-free zone on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics.

This one confuses me.  From what I've previously read, Massachusetts will likely lose this one.  You can stick a "First Amendment Zone" at a political convention in a chain-link cage a mile away, but you can't require abortion protestors to stand 35 feet away from an abortion clinic?  That makes no sense.
 
2014-06-16 09:10:03 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: enry: somedude210: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling

I thought you two were kidding. I don't want to even know how it got this far.

[motherofgod.jpg]

I wouldn't be surprised if the abortion protesting liars actually won.

- Abortion clinic buffer zones: Abortion opponents are challenging as a violation of their free speech rights a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot (10.5-meter) protest-free zone on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics.

This one confuses me.  From what I've previously read, Massachusetts will likely lose this one.  You can stick a "First Amendment Zone" at a political convention in a chain-link cage a mile away, but you can't require abortion protestors to stand 35 feet away from an abortion clinic?  That makes no sense.


Free speech advocates don't give nearly enough money to the GOP.
 
2014-06-16 09:12:14 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: This one confuses me.  From what I've previously read, Massachusetts will likely lose this one.  You can stick a "First Amendment Zone" at a political convention in a chain-link cage a mile away, but you can't require abortion protestors to stand 35 feet away from an abortion clinic?  That makes no sense.


One is about protecting whores who don't want to feel threatened or get their feelings hurt while they make decisions that kill people.  The other is about abortion.
 
2014-06-16 09:15:12 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: This one confuses me. From what I've previously read, Massachusetts will likely lose this one. You can stick a "First Amendment Zone" at a political convention in a chain-link cage a mile away, but you can't require abortion protestors to stand 35 feet away from an abortion clinic? That makes no sense.


if they get rid of the the zone entirely, that's gonna be a bad thing. If they decrease the distance, then it'll still suck but it won't be nearly as bad. Anti-abortion advocates are crazy motherf*ckers sometimes
 
2014-06-16 09:21:24 AM  

dittybopper: One is about protecting whores who don't want to feel threatened or get their feelings hurt while they make decisions that kill people. The other is about abortion.


Well, that sheds new light on the subject.  I think I get it now.
 
2014-06-16 09:22:49 AM  

dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.


knowmore.washingtonpost.com

//any excuse to post this
 
2014-06-16 09:25:31 AM  

zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this


you know, Randy Johnson is really the only one that *should* hit the strike zone.
 
2014-06-16 09:27:19 AM  

somedude210: zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this

you know, Randy Johnson is really the only one that *should* hit the strike zone.


Looks like Nolan Ryan may have been trying too hard for a bean ball.
 
2014-06-16 09:30:34 AM  
you know, Randy Johnson is really the only one that *should* hit the strike zone.

Because Greg Maddux and Nolan Ryan totally sucked, amirite?

/Give Clinton a shot at reliever, he painted the corner.
 
2014-06-16 09:31:38 AM  

zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this


Bush threw up a meatball, a good hitter send that to the next county.  Obama threw a wild pitch which would have sailed to the backstop.  Clinton looks like he nipped the edge of the strike zone, might catch a few batters looking.

I'm surprised Ryan's pitch was so far off.
 
2014-06-16 09:36:50 AM  

zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this


Clinton threw a nice pitch...could make the batter reach for it.  And Dubya's got good aim.

Obama's a bit high and to the left.

Ba dum bum bssh.
 
2014-06-16 09:38:15 AM  
It's good to see that we Farkers are all geared up to sign Clinton on with the Yankees.....
 
2014-06-16 09:39:19 AM  
Oh, and for those, like me, wondering what that "Anti-Abortion group arguing that laws against false claims violate their freedom of speech" case is all about, the group is called the Susan B. Anthony List, and they wanted to put up a billboard stating that a Representative who voted for the ACA voted "for taxpayer funded abortions" even though the law specifically states that no taxpayer funding can go towards abortion services, and we told they couldn't. HuffPo link
 
2014-06-16 10:11:44 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


So you would also be fine with restricting union strikes and protests to a far distance from the business they are targeting? Plenty of lies, intimidation, and violence in those
 
2014-06-16 10:13:53 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


SCOTUS has already ruled that preventing a corporation from making fraudulent claims in their advertising "violated their free speech".  See California vs. Nike.  FSM help us all.
 
2014-06-16 10:13:58 AM  
First three cases out:

Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - First big case of the term coming out, Court strikes down Sixth Circuit 9-0, holding that the political group who was prevented from putting up a billboard has standing to challenge the law as infringing their constitutional rights. May eventually lead to the law being struck down.
Argentina v. NML Capital - Court holds 7-1 that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act doesn't bar creditors (seeking to collect from Argentina after their recent default) from getting information about Argentina's assets  outside the United States. Could be a big sticking point in US/Argentine relations.
 
2014-06-16 10:14:25 AM  

ArkAngel: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

So you would also be fine with restricting union strikes and protests to a far distance from the business they are targeting? Plenty of lies, intimidation, and violence in those


You know how I know you didn't RTFA?
 
2014-06-16 10:15:12 AM  
SCOTUS more like

scrote-us
 
2014-06-16 10:16:40 AM  

Rincewind53: First three cases out:

Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - First big case of the term coming out, Court strikes down Sixth Circuit 9-0, holding that the political group who was prevented from putting up a billboard has standing to challenge the law as infringing their constitutional rights. May eventually lead to the law being struck down.
Argentina v. NML Capital - Court holds 7-1 that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act doesn't bar creditors (seeking to collect from Argentina after their recent default) from getting information about Argentina's assets  outside the United States. Could be a big sticking point in US/Argentine relations.


Who was in the majority on that ruling?

Can't say I'm that surprised about the SBAL v. Driehaus case since we've long said freedom of speech makes libel and slander unconstitutional.
 
2014-06-16 10:18:09 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


I'm not sure how this law works.  Depending on that, I could see myself agreeing with the group of shiatbags on this.  Who determines which claims are true or false, and what are they limited to?

To be all ridiculous about it, could people end up in charge who decide global warming is just Jesus giving us a blanket and execute the law accordingly?


That said, I'd still hate to be the guy who appears to be (or may actually be) fighting for my right to bullshiat people.
 
2014-06-16 10:19:31 AM  

ArkAngel: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

So you would also be fine with restricting union strikes and protests to a far distance from the business they are targeting? Plenty of lies, intimidation, and violence in those


Yeah so, if you could just go ahead and read what I wrote, that would be greaaaaat. Yeah.
 
2014-06-16 10:19:35 AM  

Serious Black: Who was in the majority on that ruling?


Kagan on Abramski, Thomas on Susan B. Anthony List, and Scalia on NML.

Serious Black: Can't say I'm that surprised about the SBAL v. Driehaus case since we've long said freedom of speech makes libel and slander unconstitutional.


Laws banning libel and slander are 100% constitutional and I'm not sure where you got that idea.
 
2014-06-16 10:19:53 AM  

xanadian: zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this

Clinton threw a nice pitch...could make the batter reach for it.  And Dubya's got good aim.

Obama's a bit high and to the left.

Ba dum bum bssh.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
2014-06-16 10:20:51 AM  

Serious Black: Rincewind53: First three cases out:

Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - First big case of the term coming out, Court strikes down Sixth Circuit 9-0, holding that the political group who was prevented from putting up a billboard has standing to challenge the law as infringing their constitutional rights. May eventually lead to the law being struck down.
Argentina v. NML Capital - Court holds 7-1 that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act doesn't bar creditors (seeking to collect from Argentina after their recent default) from getting information about Argentina's assets  outside the United States. Could be a big sticking point in US/Argentine relations.

Who was in the majority on that ruling?

Can't say I'm that surprised about the SBAL v. Driehaus case since we've long said freedom of speech makes libel and slander unconstitutional.


NM. Found it myself. Kennedy and the liberal four vs. the conservative four. I'm still surprised by that ruling. I would have expected Kennedy to join the other side and make it harder to go after straw purchasers.
 
2014-06-16 10:24:16 AM  

Rincewind53: Serious Black: Can't say I'm that surprised about the SBAL v. Driehaus case since we've long said freedom of speech makes libel and slander unconstitutional.


Laws banning libel and slander are 100% constitutional and I'm not sure where you got that idea.


So SBAL's case should be open and shut then, right? They're arguing this law preemptively banning them from making a facially false statement is unconstitutional, so SCOTUS will find 9-0 against them, right?
 
2014-06-16 10:24:21 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


And they're right and they have precedent.

A few years back SCOTUS ruled that you can lie about having won medals in the military (unless you're doing so to defraud someone.)
 
2014-06-16 10:26:27 AM  

xanadian: zedster: dittybopper: Sotomayor throws like a girl.

[knowmore.washingtonpost.com image 850x562]

//any excuse to post this

Clinton threw a nice pitch...could make the batter reach for it.  And Dubya's got good aim.

Obama's a bit high and to the left.

Ba dum bum bssh.


I snorted more air than usual out my nose.
 
2014-06-16 10:29:26 AM  

Rincewind53: First three cases out:

Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus - First big case of the term coming out, Court strikes down Sixth Circuit 9-0, holding that the political group who was prevented from putting up a billboard has standing to challenge the law as infringing their constitutional rights. May eventually lead to the law being struck down.
Argentina v. NML Capital - Court holds 7-1 that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act doesn't bar creditors (seeking to collect from Argentina after their recent default) from getting information about Argentina's assets  outside the United States. Could be a big sticking point in US/Argentine relations.



Rincewind - HOLY COW on Abramski!! The screaming is going to be *epic*
 
2014-06-16 10:30:13 AM  

BMFPitt: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

And they're right and they have precedent.

A few years back SCOTUS ruled that you can lie about having won medals in the military (unless you're doing so to defraud someone.)


Lying about yourself for for non-fraudulent means is protected speech, ie: "I have a 10" penis". Lying to damage the reputation of another person is not, ie: " You should not hire BMFPitt because he stole a million dollars from his last company."
 
2014-06-16 10:32:54 AM  
So Justin Bieber would have beaned a left-handed batter.
 
2014-06-16 10:35:29 AM  

Rincewind53: Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.


That was a pretty interesting case focusing on something relatively innocuous given that it was a firearm legally transferred.  I couldn't figure out why the guy was even charged other than they couldn't nail him for bank robbery and tried to get something to stick just to convict him on something.
 
2014-06-16 10:36:15 AM  

Serious Black: I would have expected Kennedy to join the other side and make it harder to go after straw purchasers.


Remember, Kennedy is Catholic... he tends to lean anti-gun on a lot of things.
 
2014-06-16 10:36:17 AM  

Serious Black: Rincewind53: Serious Black: Can't say I'm that surprised about the SBAL v. Driehaus case since we've long said freedom of speech makes libel and slander unconstitutional.


Laws banning libel and slander are 100% constitutional and I'm not sure where you got that idea.

So SBAL's case should be open and shut then, right? They're arguing this law preemptively banning them from making a facially false statement is unconstitutional, so SCOTUS will find 9-0 against them, right?


Actually, the SBAL list case didn't address the issue of false statements at all (except tangentially). Basically, the case was one about  standing. The SBAL had wanted to put up a billboard that claimed that voting for Obamacare was "voting for taxpayer-funded abortions." The billboard company was nervous, especially after the candidate they were running ads against (Driehaus) sent them a threatening letter. Therefore, the SBAL ended up ditching the plans to  actually post the billboard, and instead went to court to challenge the law. They were shot down at stage one (summary judgment) when the District Court held that they did not have standing to challenge the law, because the State hadn't actually taken action against them yet (Driehaus had started that process, but nothing had happened yet). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court, but today the Supreme Court unanimously held that SBAL  did have standing to challenge the law, holding that they had alleged a "sufficiently imminent injury" to give them standing to challenge the law. That means that at this point, the case will go back down to the District Court, and can go forward on the  actual challenge to the law.

Separate from all of this, however, is libel, slander, and defamation. These laws don't just penalize making  false statements, but it's a crime (in places with criminal libel law) or something that a person can be sued for, to make statements about another person that you  know to be false (or recklessly disregard the truth), that causes harm against someone else through the fault of the person making the statement. These kinds of statements have never been protected by the First Amendment. They are different from the statements at issue in the SBAL case, because those statements are political speech; to a certain extent, there is a presumption that no one actually believes political advertising, and it's expected that people are going to stretch the truth. Regardless, the law that was being challenged here doesn't only make libel, slander, and defamation illegal; it goes further, by making it a crime to "[m]ake a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official" or " "[p]ost, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."  This is very different from libel/slander, because there is no harm element at all, no defense for parody, fair use, etc... Therefore, comparing it to libel and slander misses the point.
 
2014-06-16 10:36:32 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

SCOTUS has already ruled that preventing a corporation from making fraudulent claims in their advertising "violated their free speech".  See California vs. Nike.  FSM help us all.


I thought SCOTUS kicked that one back.
 
2014-06-16 10:36:51 AM  

enry: somedude210: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling

I thought you two were kidding. I don't want to even know how it got this far.

[motherofgod.jpg]


The anti-abortion group thinks that they are like Fox News.
 
2014-06-16 10:37:11 AM  

mrmopar5287: Rincewind53: Abramski v. U.S. - Court upholds, 5-4, a law requiring gun purchasers to indicate whether they intend to be the final owner of the gun, and making it a crime to lie on the form about whether you are going to give the gun to someone else.

That was a pretty interesting case focusing on something relatively innocuous given that it was a firearm legally transferred.  I couldn't figure out why the guy was even charged other than they couldn't nail him for bank robbery and tried to get something to stick just to convict him on something.


That's almost certainly the correct reason for why they went after him; they wanted to get him with  something.
 
2014-06-16 10:38:27 AM  

max_pooper: Lying about yourself for for non-fraudulent means is protected speech, ie: "I have a 10" penis". Lying to damage the reputation of another person is not, ie: " You should not hire BMFPitt because he stole a million dollars from his last company."


Maybe I mixed the case up with something else.  Now I'll have to look it up.
 
2014-06-16 10:40:21 AM  

buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.


Best part? Their brief is co-written by P.J. O'Rourke, and argues that "truthiness" (i.e. arguments that feel like they are correct but which do not reflect the evidence available as actually being truthful) is "a key part of political discourse. It is difficult to imagine life without it, and our political discourse is weakened by Orwellian laws that try to prohibit it." Yes, it does cite Stephen Colbert as a source in the footnotes.

Basically, the argument is that because so many people believe the ACA contains tax-payer funded abortions a group claiming that it does is not being deceptive as it is a sincerely held belief protected by the First Amendment.

Honestly I think it would be safer to claim that the ad was accurate than trying to make a larger case that it is unconstitutional to keep campaigns from spreading false information. Point out that they just said "taxpayer-funded abortions" and then come up with a scenario where a plan could use public funds towards an abortion while keeping within the requirements of the Hyde Amendment (a destitute rape victim who is on Medicaid could get an abortion, for example.) Sure, it's not like the ACA actually changed policy to allow for public funding of abortions where no funding existed before, but as long as you can show the politician voted for a bill that CONTINUED to allow such funding you have plausible deniability.
 
2014-06-16 10:40:44 AM  

Rincewind53: That's almost certainly the correct reason for why they went after him; they wanted to get him with  something.


I guess the lesson from this is don't write checks with "GLOCK 19 handgun" on the memo line.
 
2014-06-16 10:41:23 AM  

dittybopper: One is about protecting whores who don't want to feel threatened or get their feelings hurt while they make decisions that kill people.  The other is about abortion.


We have a winner!
 
2014-06-16 10:41:51 AM  

BMFPitt: max_pooper: Lying about yourself for for non-fraudulent means is protected speech, ie: "I have a 10" penis". Lying to damage the reputation of another person is not, ie: " You should not hire BMFPitt because he stole a million dollars from his last company."

Maybe I mixed the case up with something else.  Now I'll have to look it up.


See my above post; lying can be totally fine (Supreme Court even recently struck down a law making it a crime to claim you had won military medals when you had not), as long as it's not done to damage the reputation of others, or in the commercial world if it's false or misleading to customers (false advertising, e.g.).
 
2014-06-16 10:43:56 AM  

Grungehamster: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

Best part? Their brief is co-written by P.J. O'Rourke, and argues that "truthiness" (i.e. arguments that feel like they are correct but which do not reflect the evidence available as actually being truthful) is "a key part of political discourse. It is difficult to imagine life without it, and our political discourse is weakened by Orwellian laws that try to prohibit it." Yes, it does cite Stephen Colbert as a source in the footnotes.

Basically, the argument is that because so many people believe the ACA contains tax-payer funded abortions a group claiming that it does is not being deceptive as it is a sincerely held belief protected by the First Amendment.

Honestly I think it would be safer to claim that the ad was accurate than trying to make a larger case that it is unconstitutional to keep campaigns from spreading false information. Point out that they just said "taxpayer-funded abortions" and then come up with a scenario where a plan could use public funds towards an abortion while keeping within the requirements of the Hyde Amendment (a destitute rape victim who is on Medicaid could get an abortion, for example.) Sure, it's not like the ACA actually changed policy to allow for public funding of abortions where no funding existed before, but as long as you can show the politician voted for a bill that CONTINUED to allow such funding you have plausible deniability.


See above: Court today decided unanimously that the Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. The Court wasn't deciding whether the law itself was constitutional, just whether a group that hadn't yet been prosecuted for posting the false statements could challenge it.

Moving forward will be the  actual challenge to the law.
 
2014-06-16 10:45:54 AM  

Rincewind53: See my above post; lying can be totally fine (Supreme Court even recently struck down a law making it a crime to claim you had won military medals when you had not), as long as it's not done to damage the reputation of others, or in the commercial world if it's false or misleading to customers (false advertising, e.g.).


Is this not false advertising in the political sense?

Unfortunately, if you do outlaw even blatantly and maliciously false political speech, the clusterfark that would ensue of trying to figure out what the truth actually is and who is in charge of that process would lead to some terrible, terribly situations.  Not the least of which would be truth being legally designated a lie in GOP jurisdictions.
 
2014-06-16 10:46:21 AM  

Grungehamster: Best part? Their An amicusbrief is co-written by P.J. O'Rourke, and argues that "truthiness" (i.e. arguments that feel like they are correct but which do not reflect the evidence available as actually being truthful) is "a key part of political discourse..."


FTFY. As hilarious as that brief was, it wasn't the party's brief.
 
2014-06-16 10:47:07 AM  
- "False" campaign claims: An anti-abortion group says state laws that try to police false statements during political campaigns runs afoul of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees such rights as freedom of speech.

Wow... Just, wow.

How about instead of a law, we just make sure that the pro abortion groups get to make all of the false claims about anti abortion morons that they want to?
 
2014-06-16 10:47:28 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: enry: somedude210: buster_v: An antiabortion group is suing because the law prohibiting them from making false claims violates their freedom of speech? They're really going to the Supreme Court with that?

I think I'll have a nice big bowl of poe slaw with my lunch.

you saw that too. I can't wait to hear the ruling

I thought you two were kidding. I don't want to even know how it got this far.

[motherofgod.jpg]

I wouldn't be surprised if the abortion protesting liars actually won.

- Abortion clinic buffer zones: Abortion opponents are challenging as a violation of their free speech rights a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot (10.5-meter) protest-free zone on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics.

This one confuses me.  From what I've previously read, Massachusetts will likely lose this one.  You can stick a "First Amendment Zone" at a political convention in a chain-link cage a mile away, but you can't require abortion protestors to stand 35 feet away from an abortion clinic?  That makes no sense.


if I were ever approached by one of those rabid anti abortion people who got up in my face screaming and threatening me I'd shoot them and claim I was standing my ground. they've killed before and could do it again so there's precedent.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report