pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 91,761
- 38,762
- 2,250
That's splitting hairs.
No it isn't. It's well documented rulings.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's splitting hairs.
Where? You don't have a right to be on school grounds unless you have business there. Just because it's named Public School doesn't mean its open to the public to wonder on in. You do have a right to express yourself freely in public though, even if you're KKK and there are kids around.You're making my point. We restrict the freedoms of assembly and speech because we're protecting children.
You're not blocking the sidewalk if you simply stand in one spot. You'd be blocking it if you had 50 people clustered around you and no one could get past. Why is that even significant? You would not be blocking access to a school if you had 50 people with a loudmouth that left an open space for others to walk through.No it isn't. It's well documented rulings.
You're not blocking the sidewalk if you simply stand in one spot.
You'd be blocking it if you had 50 people clustered around you and no one could get past. Why is that even significant? You would not be blocking access to a school if you had 50 people with a loudmouth that left an open space for others to walk through.
Hmm, your in favor of women being victims of the porn industry, and little kids being indoctrinated with it, wish I could say I am surprised!Nanny state
Heck, we infringe on the 1st even when already born kids are not around. Try to protest inside the buffer zone around an abortion clinic, on the public sidewalk.Where? You don't have a right to be on school grounds unless you have business there. Just because it's named Public School doesn't mean its open to the public to wonder on in. You do have a right to express yourself freely in public though, even if you're KKK and there are kids around.
Who has agreed to that?As nearly everyone has agreed, it is going to do very little to stop minors from accessing porn.
Then be a parent and control your own damn kidsThere's something wrong with anyone thinking it's okay for children to have access to pornography
What exactly are you opposing here? Is the 1st sufficient grounds to strike down efforts to limit children's access to pron?Which is legal as an individual. You are just swinging hoping to hit upon something.
Find an example. You're "what if's" are a complete waste of time. First they were in front of the doors, now they aren't. What next?
When they're at school, they're out of their parents' control. Are you advocating for homeschooling?Then be a parent and control your own damn kids
Cool another one on the record for allowing women to be denigrated and little kids viewing porn!Then be a parent and control your own damn kids
What exactly are you opposing here? Is the 1st sufficient grounds to strike down efforts to limit children's access to pron?
Why are you giving your kids smart phones in the first place if you’re that worried?When they're at school, they're out of their parents' control. Are you advocating for homeschooling?
So we should stop stores from requiring ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol?They argued back when the Supreme Court tossed this before that it's up to the parents to monitor kids, not the state's.
As noted, some clamor for a nanny state.
When they're at school, they're out of their parents' control. Are you advocating for homeschooling?
You don't have a first amendment right to physically intimidate people. That's what those laws are restricting.Heck, we infringe on the 1st even when already born kids are not around. Try to protest inside the buffer zone around an abortion clinic, on the public sidewalk.
So we should stop stores from requiring ID to buy cigarettes and alcohol?