This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Imagine this, it's not a first amendment right to video police

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

That's only for the Eighth Circuit. Six other federal courts say you can.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
Time will tell.

What you bozos don't realize apparently is that you're already about restricting free speech.

It should come as no surprise when it's used against you... and it will.

View user profile
What you bozos don't realize apparently is that you're already about restricting free speech.

It should come as no surprise when it's used against you... and it will.


I do not know how to respond. First, taking a photograph is not speech. It may be protected by the courts under their penumbra rights arguments, but it is the act of capturing an image. I do not understand who is about restricting speech. The very fact that you make the accusation against "you bozos" assumes that all of us in some way give tacit or out right support to restricting free speech. That is absurd first in the nature of the generalization, and second in the reality of American life today. People can speak their mind freely in America. The courts have repeatedly through our history protected the same. What illusion do you see in the Northern Lights in Michigan which makes you think reality down here has changed?

View user profile
Earth to PK.....I can tell you to STFU if you come onto my property, but I am not the government. When the government attempts to tell somebody to STFU, the courts have not wavered in protecting free speech. This generalization that folks in government are restricting speech is absurd.

View user profile
It's just a matter of time. The pc fascist culture is coming of age... each block built on top of the previous.

You asshats labeled a person a paid shill and then rationalized that his "spam" was intolerable.

It's just a matter of time.

View user profile
Markle was part of the Russian bots. The stories were mostly false, and they were rebutted which in free speech dialogue one responds to defend a false position after it is proven with facts that what he posted was a false lie. He then would wait three days and post the same lie again which was exactly what the Russians were paying people to do.

Now the part that you never read in the first amendment as you half wittingly claim the first amendment is being censored by college students or members of this forum:

Amendment I. 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.

The courts have taken the first amendment as the freedom of individuals to associate with who they choose. Under your fascist belief system, you think a private college student organization, or a private individual's forum cannot choose to exercise their right to associate with whom they please under the very same first amendment which you think stops private individuals from in fact restricting speech which is inconsistent with their stated goals.....like no spam. You see Boards does not represent the government. You see a group of students at Harvard are not the government. Citizens United has oft been criticized but that was the Supreme Court once again giving power to the right of citizens to band together and associate even though people look at the horrible results of such association. You cannot pretend you care one iota about the constitution if you do not even understand the most basic components of the same.

Now if this forum was the Russian policy center, we might have welcomed Mr. Markle's right to associate with us, but it was Board's forum. Good riddance to a traitor and liar.

View user profile
All spun up about a constructed agenda against a person with which you disagreed. It took 3 tries... but eventually you fell in line with the confirmation bias. He wasn't the boogie man... he was just an individual who choose to associate with us. What this bias is turning into is intolerance of those who disagree with the leftist progression. You're so condition now that you can't be objective... sad really.

View user profile
Wrong. The first time he was banned for spam, I thought like you it was a matter of his ideas being resented. So I voted to keep him because over the years I had developed a personal relation with him. However, when he came right back and began posting propaganda lies from spam sites, over and over again, It was clear that he was using this forum as an advertising base for another organization and that he was either getting compensated for the same, or was a member of some fascist organization which was flooding the internet with lies. Every individual has the right to come on this forum and be wrong. No individual has the right to come on this forum and sell something which is wrong. I could go all day back and forth with anyone if the conversation involves the element of truth and facts. I will not be spammed by tedious lie after lie and then declare that person is expressing their views. He was not. He was a shill selling a product which was offensive. He is gone. I get attacked by everyone on this forum at one time or another, but I am not selling a thing, and reserve the right to be wrong in my individual opinions. You fail to discern the difference, because you share some of the propaganda sites which the Russians were very happy to pay and provide.

View user profile
Vikingwoman wrote:That's only for the Eighth Circuit. Six other federal courts say you can.

Thank you for pointing that out VW!

The question that comes to my mind re recording police doing their job is this: If they are in a public place, like any other citizen they do not have the "expectation of privacy". Isn't this the argument made in so many cases where someone is recorded on "film" or with an audio device? I'm thinking of the many bloopers made by politicians or their aides that have gone viral. No one got sued that I know of. Are police exempt from being viewed by other citizens? Isn't the point of them wearing body-cams exactly to promote transparency and public trust?

I mean they are public employees functioning for the most part in public places. It seems rather odd to restrict recording them unless the person is getting so close to the action as to interfere with the arrest.

View user profile
Each state has laws which restrict certain audio recordings and photography in certain factual situations. These restrictions have NEVER been considered speech, but again fall within the court's prior penumbra theories of personal privacy rights under the bill of rights.

Griswold:
“‘Privacy’ is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept.” Supreme Court rules that the Constitution protects a right to privacy in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of constitutional protections such as the Ninth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

Larsen v. Fort Wayne Police Dept., 2010

“The First Amendment, however, does not protect purely private recreational, non-communicative photography.”

“The First Amendment is not implicated because a person uses a camera, but rather, when that camera is used as a means of engaging in protected expressive conduct or, less commonly, to gather information about what public officials do on public property”

So to say simply that it is not a first amendment right will depend on local laws which must pass not only the rational basis test of the 14th amendment, but the higher standard of strict scrutiny because some capturing of images have been held to fall within the penumbra of private rights under our bill of rights and the interpretations of the Supreme Court.

View user profile

Learn the difference between FREE SPEECH and HATE SPEECH!

View user profile
panhandler wrote:

Learn the difference between FREE SPEECH and HATE SPEECH!

First you learn what free speech is.

View user profile
First you learn what free speech is.

Please learn. Your beloved Nazi and KKK incited violence and the same was accomplished on 21 innocent citizens of America. There is no right guaranteed under the bill of rights which has not been qualified. None are absolute. When speech incites violence and hate the courts have consistently allowed restrictions on that speech.

Schenck v. United States

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

In 1969 the Supreme Court modified that standard to the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

So please do not pretend that you are learned on what freedom of speech is or for that matter any of the bill of rights which you continually and without exception insert some fantasy that those rights are absolute and without qualification. Nazis.......incitement.......has not history told us repeatedly how this ends.

View user profile
My beloved? Lol... fuck off.

View user profile
My beloved? Lol... fuck off.

You are either for em or against em, but pretending there is middle ground.....pleaseeeeeeee. Years of support for white Nationalism and you think somebody cannot see the attraction. We are the footprints we leave in this life. They can be on a path to righteous moral conduct or they can be a path to evil, and to think there is no choice, or that the choice has not already been made in a person's life is only a matter of looking down and seeing where you have walked. There is no such thing as a moral nazi or a noble KKK member.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum