Constitution???? What Constitution?

[Wry Catcher]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

Oh yeah, I remember the lyrics from one of his early works, I first heard it at Delores park and it went something like this: There's a women right over there, revising history so ya gotta beware.

Amazing how prescient he was, seeing far into the future as he did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

So the answer is no they were not ordered not to think about how much they hate gays.

So you lied.

I never lie.

That's what bothers you most, isn't it.

You have lied dozens of times.

Were the Kleins told not to think something? What were they told not to think?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

So the Court was wrong to allow the outlawing of polygamy?

That's pretty funny. You support polygamy and oppose gay marriage.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

Why is it illegal to publish child pornography if freedom of the press can't be abridged?

I'll help you. Because freedom of the press CAN be abridged, if the circumstances warrant it,

as can freedom of speech.

Again, threatening to kill someone is speech. You claim it can't be abridged. You believe the law is in error to prohibit or criminalize such speech.

Why?

Keeping the press away from Air Force Planes carrying the bodies of US military personnel being returned from Iraq was an insidious form of censorship

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no 'explaining' required.

Anyone reading the thread can see that some folks believe that Americans should be allowed to say and think whatever they choose. I serve as such an example.

Others, like you, favor criminalizing thoughts or words.



Now....if you control the courts and government, I would be punished.
If I controlled the courts and government, we could each go on our merry way.

It's as simple as that.

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

So the answer is no they were not ordered not to think about how much they hate gays.

So you lied.

I never lie.

That's what bothers you most, isn't it.

You have lied dozens of times.

Were the Kleins told not to think something? What were they told not to think?

Gag order.
I proved it, you lied about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Were the Kleins warned not to think about how much they hate gays?

It's none of your business who they hate or how much they hate.


Let's add an historical perspective to this:
.....you wish America to have the same perspective about disagreement that Nazi Germany had, and Soviet Russia, among others, had. The result of such was 100 million slaughtered.

You are what the American philosopher George Santayana warned about.

So the answer is no they were not ordered not to think about how much they hate gays.

So you lied.

I never lie.

That's what bothers you most, isn't it.

You have lied dozens of times.

Were the Kleins told not to think something? What were they told not to think?

Gag order.
I proved it, you lied about it.

lol, now you're melting down. lol, my fifth one this week I've induced.

What kind of gag order prohibits unexpressed thoughts? I gotta hear this one.

 

[Camp]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

Unfortunately for you, the founding fathers assumed the words they wrote would not have to be understood by the village idiots of their day. They knew that if some asshole ran down the street yelling fire when there was no fire the village would tar and feather the guy and run him out of town on a rail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Welcome to the karma cafe....there are no menus but you will get what you deserve

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

And yet all of that and more has been abridged by all Administrations, Federal, State and local.

That you are dishonest is a given, that anyone wants to censure you is ridiculous. The more you lie - by omission, commission, innuendo, half-truth or hyperbole - the less credible you become - in the sense that less people find you relevant and more have decided you're a partisan hack with nothing to offer but "ain't ( liberals, progressives, Democrats, anyone who disagrees with me ) awful". You have become a cliche.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

Unfortunately for you, the founding fathers assumed the words they wrote would not have to be understood by the village idiots of their day. They knew that if some asshole ran down the street yelling fire when there was no fire the village would tar and feather the guy and run him out of town on a rail.

I'm curious.

How'd you get the tar off?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are in reality getting what you deserve. You have become so vile and obscene that those traits supersede your reputation as a liar and partisan hack. You have no credibility as your distorted and fraudulent concepts are routinely and consistently debunked and trashed by a wide range of posters of differing political ideologies and scholastic talents. Turns out you are nothing in the remotest way an academic or capable debater. You appear to be nothing more than a hateful and mean spirited and bitter wanna be bully with no discernible redeeming value.

SPOT ON!!!

The only spots are you and the one on the blue dress.

And you are free to express yourself in any manner you choose, I have no desire to censor you, though the International Order of Trolls may someday revoke your membership.

That said, this link is worth ten thousand of your ad hominems:

The Free Expression Policy Project

This is worth more:

. "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."

And yet all of that and more has been abridged by all Administrations, Federal, State and local.

That you are dishonest is a given, that anyone wants to censure you is ridiculous. The more you lie - by omission, commission, innuendo, half-truth or hyperbole - the less credible you become - in the sense that less people find you relevant and more have decided you're a partisan hack with nothing to offer but "ain't ( liberals, progressives, Democrats, anyone who disagrees with me ) awful". You have become a cliche.

Ah, you little cloaca, you....you seem beside yourself today.....look at all the fibs you've tried to pack into one post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The use of gag orders by fascists who have insinuated their way into American government is as out of place as applause in a church.

It not only smacks of totalitarianism, of oppression, but it serves no purpose other than the flexing of the sort of political muscles that dictators have.



11. "The phrase “media gag order” in relation to United States v. Barrett Lancaster Brown is both too tame and slightly inaccurate, because the gag order is nothing less than the government's attempt to restrict Brown's free speech rights and impugn the professionalism of his highly-experienced defense team.


Indeed, it is just another part of an ongoing attack on Brown's ability to speak out against those who wield power with impunity: first, the corrupt contractors he targeted, and now a government hell-bent on burying the young journalist and scaring off those who might take his place.


Professor Erwin Chemerinsky argues in his wonderful essay for the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal that these protections must extend to trial participants. “The imposition of these gag orders is based on several assumptions that are, at the very least, unproven and more likely untenable,” he writes.


“First is the assumption that publicity jeopardizes a fair trial,” continues Chemerinsky, who cites numerous examples, including the cases of Rodney King, Reginald Denny, the Menendez brothers, and the O.J. Simpson prosecution, in which there was rampant speculation that press attention would all but seal the defendants' fates. As we now know, publicity in these cases in fact had the opposite result.
An Unconstitutional Gag Order Threatens to Further Silence Barrett Brown

 

[NYcarbineer]

The use of gag orders by fascists who have insinuated their way into American government is as out of place as applause in a church.

It not only smacks of totalitarianism, of oppression, but it serves no purpose other than the flexing of the sort of political muscles that dictators have.



11. "The phrase “media gag order” in relation to United States v. Barrett Lancaster Brown is both too tame and slightly inaccurate, because the gag order is nothing less than the government's attempt to restrict Brown's free speech rights and impugn the professionalism of his highly-experienced defense team.


Indeed, it is just another part of an ongoing attack on Brown's ability to speak out against those who wield power with impunity: first, the corrupt contractors he targeted, and now a government hell-bent on burying the young journalist and scaring off those who might take his place.


Professor Erwin Chemerinsky argues in his wonderful essay for the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal that these protections must extend to trial participants. “The imposition of these gag orders is based on several assumptions that are, at the very least, unproven and more likely untenable,” he writes.


“First is the assumption that publicity jeopardizes a fair trial,” continues Chemerinsky, who cites numerous examples, including the cases of Rodney King, Reginald Denny, the Menendez brothers, and the O.J. Simpson prosecution, in which there was rampant speculation that press attention would all but seal the defendants' fates. As we now know, publicity in these cases in fact had the opposite result.
An Unconstitutional Gag Order Threatens to Further Silence Barrett Brown

Those gag orders have nothing to do with the bigot bakers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The use of gag orders by fascists who have insinuated their way into American government is as out of place as applause in a church.

It not only smacks of totalitarianism, of oppression, but it serves no purpose other than the flexing of the sort of political muscles that dictators have.



11. "The phrase “media gag order” in relation to United States v. Barrett Lancaster Brown is both too tame and slightly inaccurate, because the gag order is nothing less than the government's attempt to restrict Brown's free speech rights and impugn the professionalism of his highly-experienced defense team.


Indeed, it is just another part of an ongoing attack on Brown's ability to speak out against those who wield power with impunity: first, the corrupt contractors he targeted, and now a government hell-bent on burying the young journalist and scaring off those who might take his place.


Professor Erwin Chemerinsky argues in his wonderful essay for the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal that these protections must extend to trial participants. “The imposition of these gag orders is based on several assumptions that are, at the very least, unproven and more likely untenable,” he writes.


“First is the assumption that publicity jeopardizes a fair trial,” continues Chemerinsky, who cites numerous examples, including the cases of Rodney King, Reginald Denny, the Menendez brothers, and the O.J. Simpson prosecution, in which there was rampant speculation that press attention would all but seal the defendants' fates. As we now know, publicity in these cases in fact had the opposite result.
An Unconstitutional Gag Order Threatens to Further Silence Barrett Brown

Those gag orders have nothing to do with the bigot bakers.

Inconsequential.

The thread proved that gag orders are unconstitutional in a free America.

I beat you like a red headed step child.

As usual,