The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Gonna put a quick pin on this while I’m on vacation, but this will be a critical case to see whether this Supreme Court is willing to continue its broad consensus on an expansive Free Speech Clause or not. I feel slightly more confident than not that Gorsuch will come through, but I can't say the same for the other five right wing justices.
Is there any reason to codify a particular distance for when filming? Don't cops already have the ability to ask people to step back a couple feet?
Gonna put a quick pin on this while I’m on vacation, but this will be a critical case to see whether this Supreme Court is willing to continue its broad consensus on an expansive Free Speech Clause or not. I feel slightly more confident than not that Gorsuch will come through, but I can't say the same for the other five right wing justices.
Is there any reason to codify a particular distance for when filming? Don't cops already have the ability to ask people to step back a couple feet?
maybe to capture a badge number?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39818 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Laws against filming of cops seems like the type of thing that, in a past age, would have caused a protestant-like revolution against the established order.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Thu February 02, 2017 10:39 am Posts: 5614 Location: Most likely at the office...
I appreciate that as Americans you may get angry at Australians voicing their opinions on your processes like this, but I'd argue that the SCOTUS decisions in many ways have global effect.
How on the money are these guys? Because using humour can be a good way to get information across, but this is really just kinda scary.
Elie Mystal might be the most hysterical heterosexual male to ever live. Obviously Clarence Thomas is correctly pointing to the usage of diversity where, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Edit: I do like the horseshoe aspect of the affirmative action issue. Racial essentialists: East Asians are incapable of innovation. Lefties: we must discriminate against East Asians for reasons we're not going to get into.
Think for a minute on how thought-leaders on the left like Mystal will openly ignore the data the Harvard themselves provided to try and defend this:
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
4/5 wrote:
Theories on the leak? Liberal clerk(s) hoping to spark a wave of outrage/protests/congressional action? Or public pressure for the majority to scale back the scope of this decision from a complete overrule to merely increased restrictions?
Suspicion is going to draw closer to the author now.
Theories on the leak? Liberal clerk(s) hoping to spark a wave of outrage/protests/congressional action? Or public pressure for the majority to scale back the scope of this decision from a complete overrule to merely increased restrictions?
Suspicion is going to draw closer to the author now.
I read it, but what is the evidence they are presenting? Reads like 'well, now that we lost Congress we probably won't get Thomas for 06.Jan, so who else can we get so Biden can nominate a replacement before 2024?'. It wouldn't be the first time an activist has lied to a reporter predisposed to believe them.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22532 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
How is making a website for someone a violation of your free speech. This future website designer would be providing a platform, not speaking. If the platform is the speech, isn't Facebook and Twitter responsible for everything posted on their sites?
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
How is making a website for someone a violation of your free speech. This future website designer would be providing a platform, not speaking. If the platform is the speech, isn't Facebook and Twitter responsible for everything posted on their sites?
The question is if it's compelled speech. Like demanding an Islamic bakery draw Muhammad on a cake.
What's interesting is that the arguments against the plaintiff are at odds with anti-racist policies. For example:
Quote:
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general who argued on behalf of the Biden administration in support of Colorado, resisted any effort to carve out an exemption for same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases, he argued, do not distinguish between “views we find odious and those we respect.” He noted that in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that private schools may not discriminate based on race. But if Smith prevails, he posited, a private school could exclude some children by arguing that the messages that it teaches “change when we express them to students of a different race.”
Isn't this exactly what anti-racist educators assert is happening via the 'white supremacy' embedded our education system?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22532 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Bi_3 wrote:
B wrote:
How is making a website for someone a violation of your free speech. This future website designer would be providing a platform, not speaking. If the platform is the speech, isn't Facebook and Twitter responsible for everything posted on their sites?
But is she speaking? She's just providing the platform for others to speak.
Bi_3 wrote:
What's interesting is that the arguments against the plaintiff are at odds with anti-racist policies. For example:
Quote:
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general who argued on behalf of the Biden administration in support of Colorado, resisted any effort to carve out an exemption for same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases, he argued, do not distinguish between “views we find odious and those we respect.” He noted that in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that private schools may not discriminate based on race. But if Smith prevails, he posited, a private school could exclude some children by arguing that the messages that it teaches “change when we express them to students of a different race.”
Isn't this exactly what anti-racist educators assert is happening via the 'white supremacy' embedded our education system?
Are you asking if anti-racists endorse teaching different messages to children of different races?
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
