Why I demand a limited government.

[Quantum Windbag]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Example 2.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/13/cr...raditional-american-institutions-or-folkways/

 

[OKTexas]

I think you missed something on example 2.

The first article suggested a law student might want to challenge it, but unless some is charged and convicted they have no standing to do so. Calling someone an a-hole in an email might be rude, but not criminal, I seriously doubt this one would withstand the first challenge.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think you missed something on example 2.

The first article suggested a law student might want to challenge it, but unless some is charged and convicted they have no standing to do so. Calling someone an a-hole in an email might be rude, but not criminal, I seriously doubt this one would withstand the first challenge.

Forgot the link to the second, thanks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Both of your examples are the nonsense of small, local governments.

And the second one is from 1958.

 

[del]

in connecticut, it's illegal to walk across the street on your hands

in missouri, it's illegal to drive in a car with an uncaged bear.

the horror

 

[Luissa]

in connecticut, it's illegal to walk across the street on your hands

in missouri, it's illegal to drive in a car with an uncaged bear.

the horror

Some of these laws I really want to know what prompted them.

 

[zakdavis]

You can fish from the neck of a giraffe in Tennessee.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

You need to be consistent in your demand for ‘limited government,’ which you and other conservatives have failed to do.

As to the ordinance, until someone is actually in violation of the measure, it’s difficult to make a First Amendment analysis. It could be assumed defenders of the ordinance would claim a fighting words exemption to protected speech, but given the venue it would be difficult to determine if the intent was to cause the hearer (or ‘reader,’ in this case) to respond in a violent or unlawful manner.

 

[OKTexas]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

You need to be consistent in your demand for ‘limited government,’ which you and other conservatives have failed to do.

As to the ordinance, until someone is actually in violation of the measure, it’s difficult to make a First Amendment analysis. It could be assumed defenders of the ordinance would claim a fighting words exemption to protected speech, but given the venue it would be difficult to determine if the intent was to cause the hearer (or ‘reader,’ in this case) to respond in a violent or unlawful manner.

You don't normally get spontaneous violent response to an email or post on social media, that would tend to be premeditated. Normally fighting words are spoken face to face.

 

[Glensather]

in connecticut, it's illegal to walk across the street on your hands

in missouri, it's illegal to drive in a car with an uncaged bear.

the horror

Some of these laws I really want to know what prompted them.

In Georgia, No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.....

WHY IS THIS A LAW?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

You need to be consistent in your demand for ‘limited government,’ which you and other conservatives have failed to do.

As to the ordinance, until someone is actually in violation of the measure, it’s difficult to make a First Amendment analysis. It could be assumed defenders of the ordinance would claim a fighting words exemption to protected speech, but given the venue it would be difficult to determine if the intent was to cause the hearer (or ‘reader,’ in this case) to respond in a violent or unlawful manner.

You don't normally get spontaneous violent response to an email or post on social media, that would tend to be premeditated. Normally fighting words are spoken face to face.

‘Normally,’ but not ‘always.’

The case law is severely lacking in the online realm, where free expression and privacy rights are murky at best.

In the case of the OP ordinance, for example, what would constitute ‘intent’?

 

[zonly1]

in connecticut, it's illegal to walk across the street on your hands

in missouri, it's illegal to drive in a car with an uncaged bear.

the horror

you have a point or is this a frontal lobe disconnect?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Both of your examples are the nonsense of small, local governments.

And the second one is from 1958.

The principle of limited government applies to all government, and the second is still on the books.

 

[jillian]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

demand?

i demand you stay of of women's moral decisions.

how about that one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

You need to be consistent in your demand for ‘limited government,’ which you and other conservatives have failed to do.

As to the ordinance, until someone is actually in violation of the measure, it’s difficult to make a First Amendment analysis. It could be assumed defenders of the ordinance would claim a fighting words exemption to protected speech, but given the venue it would be difficult to determine if the intent was to cause the hearer (or ‘reader,’ in this case) to respond in a violent or unlawful manner.

I suggest you take the time to read the analysis at the blog I linked to, the guy that wrote is is a constitutional law professor, a real one, and has actually wiritten briefs for the Supreme Court, unlike you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

demand?

i demand you stay of of women's moral decisions.

how about that one?

You want me to stay out of your moral decisions? How about you stay out of mine, and allow me to kill anyone I decide deserves it? Would that be a fair trade, or do you insist that your moral judgements womehow trump mine?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Example 1.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Now There’s a Speech Restriction for You

demand?

i demand you stay of of women's moral decisions.

how about that one?

You want me to stay out of your moral decisions? How about you stay out of mine, and allow me to kill anyone I decide deserves it? Would that be a fair trade, or do you insist that your moral judgements womehow trump mine?

Your advocacy of banning abortion is inconsistent with the doctrine of limited government; the Constitution is not a cafeteria plan, you don’t get to pick and choose the limitations you like and don’t like.

In your personal, subjective opinion abortion is ‘murder.’ Noted.

But the doctrine of limited government disallows you from attempting to codify that subjective opinion into laws all citizens are compelled to obey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

demand?

i demand you stay of of women's moral decisions.

how about that one?

You want me to stay out of your moral decisions? How about you stay out of mine, and allow me to kill anyone I decide deserves it? Would that be a fair trade, or do you insist that your moral judgements womehow trump mine?

Your advocacy of banning abortion is inconsistent with the doctrine of limited government; the Constitution is not a cafeteria plan, you don’t get to pick and choose the limitations you like and don’t like.

In your personal, subjective opinion abortion is ‘murder.’ Noted.

But the doctrine of limited government disallows you from attempting to codify that subjective opinion into laws all citizens are compelled to obey.

Funny, I don't ever recall demanding a ban on abortions. By the way, unless you are going to argue that murder should not be a crime because it violates the principles of a limited government, a position I have never taken, you cannot also argue that abortion is beyond the realm of government oversight.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

You want me to stay out of your moral decisions? How about you stay out of mine, and allow me to kill anyone I decide deserves it? Would that be a fair trade, or do you insist that your moral judgements womehow trump mine?

Your advocacy of banning abortion is inconsistent with the doctrine of limited government; the Constitution is not a cafeteria plan, you don’t get to pick and choose the limitations you like and don’t like.

In your personal, subjective opinion abortion is ‘murder.’ Noted.

But the doctrine of limited government disallows you from attempting to codify that subjective opinion into laws all citizens are compelled to obey.

Funny, I don't ever recall demanding a ban on abortions. By the way, unless you are going to argue that murder should not be a crime because it violates the principles of a limited government, a position I have never taken, you cannot also argue that abortion is beyond the realm of government oversight.

by definition abortion is not murder, and abortion is guaranteed by the constitution. a limited government individual would understand that producing more legislation and regulation to suit his or her own beliefs is in direct conflict with the principles of limited government.