To me, this seems like a combination of a well-intentioned but vaguely written and overbroad law combined with a rather tortured interpretation.

I have no backstory on this. Don't know if the guy has a history of being an utter jackass, if he's physically trespassed, or what.

And the law, on its face, appears semi-reasonable. It does not impose prior restraint per se, and that's usually the standard for constitutional tests of this nature.

On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine that one guy yelling on the street was likely to "jeopardize the health of persons receiving health services within the building, interfere with the safe and effective delivery of those services within the building." I'm not sure what sort of noise would jeopardize the health of people receiving health services, quite frankly.

And I also don't know whether the AG was acting in response to legitimate complaints by multiple parties, or if she's just being vindictive and trying to bend the law to push her agenda. Filing civil-rights suits against an individual isn't something that one does lightly or on a whim.

Assuming this goes to trial, and then to appeal, my guess is that The Supremes are going to ignore intent and have a close look at the constitutionality of §4684-B-2 with regard to whether it is overly vague. Supreme courts really hate vagueness.

 

No doubt but we don't know this to be true in this case. Would your view be different if she was a Republican or an Independent? I don't see how the rights of all, as you put it, will suffer. Stupid law but a law nonetheless. He chose to break it and was cited for it. He could've just as easily stood there with a sign which would've allowed him his freedom of expression.

My point is the law was passed by the state legislature and it'll now get to be ruled on by the courts. If the law is found to be unconstitutional then no problem.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I do like to view things from both sides if I can be objective enough.

 

Veterans day appreciation.

This **** Star Giving Free Blow Jobs To Veterans On Veterans Day Really Loves Her Country - Mandatory

 

Anybody thwarting rights is a problem for me. I cited the affiliation of the AG because it was pertinent to the nature of the case (abortion and the prohibition thereof seems to fall along certain party lines).

If you can revoke the rights of one, you can revoke any or all.

 

Well, for a little more background, written by the local paper;
local news article

 

 

Darn pesky liberal media.

AP Exclusive: Carson profits from ties with convicted felon

 

Hi there Hannity.

Can we please stop this overused trope? Possibly this is how it is at UC Berkeley or something, but definitely not in the middle of the country like Mizzou. Those kids just speak louder.

I have a BA in Journalism and a minor in Philosophy and can assure you I wasn't privy to some liberal brainwashing bias.

 

I took Ethics in Journalism; we were taught Kant is God -- Ends justify the means.

My Polictial Machine class was RIDONKULOUS. There was never debate, it was all one sided. Republicans bad, democrats good.

I almost want to say i remember the democratic party being described as "good who want to help the poor/blacks" while republicans were descirbed as "rich who only care for themselves" something to that matter.

At that point in my life I was still just dealing with being a spoiled white-kid from a wealth family in a nice suburban neighborhood, dropped into the middle of the Hell and having his apt robbed a few times and held up at gun-point multiple times. I could have cared less about politics and I was easily sculpted.

I almost fell for my indoctrination, but then I was like wait, "why am i agreeing with anything these smelly hippies, startving artists, and low-class failures are saying?" and snapped out of it. I even voted for Kerry by absentee while attending college. I guess the joke's on me cause I work for him now.

to be fair, there was one professor I had, that helped me out of the trance. And this book specifcally, required reading, probably is what helped: ...not exactly the result the prof. wanted.

 

Those pesky liberal residents.

Towns thwart neo-****'s efforts to create all-white enclaves in Nebraska and Kansas

 

it's pretty annoying when the mob comes in and bothers you, yeah.

 

 

In case you missed it when you last visited.

Seattle's Famous Gum Wall Is Being Scrubbed Away to Bare Brick

 

good. all lock-bridges should be next.

 

Not sure what a lock-bridge is...





Anyway, this is just too funny:

First, the KKK tried to adopt-a-road in Georgia. Because, you know, they're responsible stewards of the earth:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...supreme-court/




They were denied. And in particular, they were condemned by state representative Tyrone Brooks, a black man who doesn't much care for the KKK and who was just sentenced to one year in a Federal prison for tax, mail and wire fraud:

Former state Rep. Tyrone Brooks sentenced | www.ajc.com




Then, the ALCU (an organization which usually opposes things like slavery and murder) stepped up to the plate and filed a civil suit in support of the KKK:

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/...rgia-complaint




Because, why not? I mean, the ACLU also defended the **** party, after all:

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-history-ta...-speech-skokie

 

Not mine but Seattle. You get the idea.






Wasn't there a case in the past 2-4 years where the ACLU and another organization more closely aligned with the right were on the same side in the case? I give you it's rare.

EDIT: Not the one I was thinking about but here's one; http://www.kctv5.com/story/23921202/...neo-****-rally

 

Things like that, while seemingly absurd on the surface, actually make it possible for me to take the ACLU seriously.


It's distressing that we already have designated Free Speech Zones in the US, not just on liberal* college campuses, but at national parks, at political conventions, in major cities, and elsewhere.

As a child, I'd been taught that the physical boundaries of any Free Speech Zone in the mainland US consisted of the entire area enclosed by the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, and the borders with Canada and Mexico, excepting any land enclosed by the fences of a prison.


This is apparently no longer the case.

 

How naïve we all were as children. Listening to those adults and the wisdom they held from their years or experience.

Then you become an adult, meet a few attorneys, and poof... the dream you were living in becomes reality.

 

Atta boy Roop.

 

Pretty good follow-up on the 'War On Poverty' for those of you old enough to remember that. I guess the current thinking would be they're all a bunch of losers who deserve it. An interesting update of a fella named Tom Fletcher who happened to be the unemployed coal miner (with 8 kids) that President Johnson used in his picture moment.

America's poorest white town: abandoned by coal, swallowed by drugs | US news | The Guardian