You've been fined 5 years for violating the verbal morality statute

[DKSuddeth]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004141090,00.html

Swearing ban for teen


By PHILIP CARDY

A FOUL-mouthed youth faces up to five years in jail if he swears — in his garden.

Robert Alexiuk, 19, was hauled before a court after his constant abusive language at his family home infuriated neighbours.

Now he has been hit with a five-year anti-social behaviour order by Manchester JPs.

It is believed to be the first bad behaviour order on a culprit’s own property.

Alexiuk, of Monsall, near Salford, can swear INSIDE his house — as long as nobody OUTSIDE can hear.

The yob — already serving 15 months jail for theft — is also banned from meeting more than three people in his garden and from playing loud music.

He is also barred from meeting ten pals or going in their gardens.

A neighbour said: “His language was unbelievable — disgusting.”

 

[NewGuy]

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.

I'm sorry, I went to a public school. Can anyone tell me where it says we have a freedom not to HEAR?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I don't think this happened in the US anyway.

 

[NewGuy]

Exactly.

This is happening in a region where it is ASSUMED they have freedoms like ours.

What is worse, is that the US is infringing on this right every chance they get as well.

We are then still viewed as free because we are "better off than..."

 

[DKSuddeth]

maybe I should have put this in the humor section, or movies, because I read it and thought of demolition man with sylvester stallone

 

[_dmp_]

awesome...I hope the little bastard goes to jail.

 

[5stringJeff]

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I'm all about alternate sentences, as they can be more effective than jail for non-violent offenders, but this is wrong.

Stupid Brits...

 

[Avatar4321]

If you take the first ammendment literally word for word you will notice there is no proscription against state governments restricting speech...

 

[NewGuy]

If you take the first ammendment literally word for word you will notice there is no proscription against state governments restricting speech...

Since I differ with your conclusion, could you show your evidence?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Since I differ with your conclusion, could you show your evidence?

Certainly

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.

As you can see it clearly states that only congress is prohibited from restricting speech. whicih means local institutions such as a city council could. This is how it was interpreted for the first hundred years and why Many cities had the power to destroy printing presses that were deemed a nuisance.

Im not saying we should go back to those days. but if we are going to take a strict constitutional interpretation. thats what it says.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Certainly



As you can see it clearly states that only congress is prohibited from restricting speech. whicih means local institutions such as a city council could. This is how it was interpreted for the first hundred years and why Many cities had the power to destroy printing presses that were deemed a nuisance.

Im not nsaying we should go back to those days. but if we are going to take a strict constitutional interpretation. thats what it says.

Unfortunately, this country has strayed so far from the original words and meanings of the constitution we just make it up as we go along.

On the flip side, since this happened in the UK I would expect their laws are the ones we should be debating. Anyone from the UK posters care to venture an argument?

 

[NewGuy]

As you can see it clearly states that only congress is prohibited from restricting speech. whicih means local institutions such as a city council could. This is how it was interpreted for the first hundred years and why Many cities had the power to destroy printing presses that were deemed a nuisance.

Im not nsaying we should go back to those days. but if we are going to take a strict constitutional interpretation. thats what it says.

You missed something:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

AND

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, Only Congress has the power to make law federally, and the law set forth is the supreme law of the land that ALL judges, from federal down MUST follow them.

Since the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, which makes it the supreme law of the land, and since all state law must follow it's guidance and authority, the power of a state to counter the Constitution is therefore impossible and illegal.

Therefore a Constitution mandating a freedom of speech can never be countered federally or statewise, or any other way without being illegal.

 

[winston churchi]

There are some strange laws in the UK alright - as here too.

I just wanted to add to your swear story - that there was this old farmer whose home was invaded by a teenager. This teen was a dropout and a career criminal at 16. He smashed the window and snuck inside this farm in a very remote area. The farmer woke up and shouted who was there and no answer. He took his pistol and shot the boy in the chest killing him.

The farmer is serving a sentence for murder - not defense - but murder.
The family of the dead kid sued the farmer for lost income - yes - lost income. You see, the kid would rob everyone, bring the goods home and sell them and that was how the family lived, off this boys crimes...the family lost that income now that junior was dead.

Is that the dumbest thing you ever heard???

 

[Big D]

That story is nothing, here in America things are much worse:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26527

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by winston churchi
There are some strange laws in the UK alright - as here too.

I just wanted to add to your swear story - that there was this old farmer whose home was invaded by a teenager. This teen was a dropout and a career criminal at 16. He smashed the window and snuck inside this farm in a very remote area. The farmer woke up and shouted who was there and no answer. He took his pistol and shot the boy in the chest killing him.

The farmer is serving a sentence for murder - not defense - but murder.
The family of the dead kid sued the farmer for lost income - yes - lost income. You see, the kid would rob everyone, bring the goods home and sell them and that was how the family lived, off this boys crimes...the family lost that income now that junior was dead.

Is that the dumbest thing you ever heard???

It's about as dumb as that link posted above about 'N-word' and 'jail'.

Both situations suck.