'Your First Amendment Right Can Be Terminated
 

Power trippin fool!!

He arrested them, only to let them go?

Looks like a waste of time and tax dollars to me.

No way, the police are here to help us:

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2542281.shtml

Should be fired and brought up on charges. Where is the FBI when you need them?

busy doing the same thing?

Why did I have a feeling I'd see Chicago badges on this guy....

Guy didn't like being on camera. Gee, that's familiar.
When the State does it they tell me I have no expectation of privacy in public. which I agree with. Maybe this guy doesn't? He obviously doesn't know law.

Notice the other officers aren't getting into his game. They'll protect him from harm, help him with the cameras and so on, but they're not arresting anyone. They don't want to get involved. Even the sergeants at the end were trying to do damage control.

City employees...

because it's one of the worst places in the u.s.

You think Chicago police are worse than NY police?

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

On a serious note, what could you do in reality? This ---- keeps popping up rather constantly, and I know of no real punishment for abuse of power. I have to watch out for this crap, I'm brown...

In the rest of the world, evidence acquired illegally or other illegal acts while taken in the line of duty mean the evidence is still legal to present - but the authority figure gets charged for the crimes he committed.

Here in the US, we give them a form of immunity, and if illegal acts are committed in the line of duty, we saw "Aw, shucks, since we're throwing out the evidence, we don't gotta even give you a slap on the wrist! Throwing out the evidence is enough punishment there!"

Seriously. I'm not joking here for once - I'm completely, 100% serious. The logic behind it is that retarded.

fight back: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46808695

it's like in the labrynith, when sarah yells "you have no power over me" to the goblin king and the whole world comes crashing down.

lol, more on chicago:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...ndy-to-voters/

Its a hole. What is awesome is we only had 37 shootings last weekend! Rofl... gun control works y0!

Going to court ain't cheap son.

Check out the comments of the site for lulz, Brainy That was :bowrofl:

Why can't the southern portion of IL split off? Have a "North Illinois" and a "south Illinois", with I80 being the cutoff.

So, how is a Chicago PD officer equivalent to Congress?

There's a term for it (local gov'ts can't violate the Bill of Rights), but after 2 whiskey sours, I can't remember it......

Chicago, it doesn't have as much litter and trash flowing around as I expected. It's relatively clean. Though I did spend a lot of time in Detroit and LA.

Look like california has caught wind of it:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...in-talk-radio/

The government can regulate commercial speech on airwaves, Brainy.

It's nothing new and it's been going on for decades. No need to get your panties in a bunch bro.

American politics: Greasin' the squeaky wheels with the blood of our liberties...

I want to see how a city is going to regulate the airwaves. If a station is outside of their jurisdiction...
Speaking of which, why and how would this be in the scope of a municipality or county?

While they can 'condemn' all they want, it adds up to zilch. Excepting that it's purely a political move by incumbents to uphold 'community standards' by doing what is politically correct.
Also see: waste of time...

oh cool thanks bro i didn't know. i thought i was a free human being, but it turns out im a sheep and im not allowed to hurt the other sheeps feelings.


---- you. youre such a ----.

The content of broadcast signals is regulated at the federal level by the FCC, as broadcasting is considered to be inter-state commerce.

However, these regulations only cover obscenity and indecency (eg: The Seven Dirty Words). They don't specifically cover things like insulting a person or calling them a Crack Ho. That would fall under libel law (criminal defamation) which applies to all published speech, be it in print or broadcast. Technically, you could even libel someone in an encyclopedia.

Libel is generally prosecuted at the state or local level rather than the federal level, so the LA city council is entirely within its rights to enact a law forbidding libel in any form.

The question would be whether broad racist or sexist remarks constitute libel. My gut feeling is that they do not, as libel is usually directed at an individual, rather than a group. It is also worth noting that in order to be libel, a statement must be false. So calling a specific person a crack ho on the radio is entirely permissible, provided that the person does in fact perform sexual services in exchange for crack. Taking this to the logical extreme, even calling a person a ------ on the air would probably not be libel, provided that the person in question is in fact black. (It would, ironically, be libel if the person were white, and if the allegation were made in a context which causes harm to the reputation of the person.)


This is more like Hate Speech. And Hate Speech is generally considered to be protected in the US, although there is one specific exception. The US Supreme Court has held that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can be held liable for hate speech made by its employees which is sexist or discriminatory in nature (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson). So under this clause, the Council would again appear to be within its rights in regulating hate speech which is generated as a commercial media product, either in print or broadcast.



Also, RattleTrap, the radio station in question (KFI) has its studios at the Warner Music building in Burbank, CA (I designed them), however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.

Calm down broski. You are getting hot under the color.

I said nothing about any of that. But being able to regulate commercial speech on airwaves has been a power the gov't has had since 1927.

You are getting outraged over something that's been here for almost a century and was passed by a crop of politicians that were around before anyone on this forum was born.

sue me bro. im just your typical well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Joe, with his usual superb articulation, managed to sum up the whole situation in a few paragraphs.

There's nothing really here to get outraged about bro, short of a desire to repeal certain government regulations (Which I do support repeal of) on the airwaves.

On the other hand, there's a very good reason why libel and hate speech are not allowed. So, YMMV.

no there's not. you're all -----s.

Thanks, but remember that there's a distinction here. Libel is never permissible. Hate speech, by comparison, is almost always permissible, except under certain specific conditions.

That was meant within the context of your post, Joe, but point taken ;).

Precisely my point. Laws regarding libel and slander already exist.
Nothing like ineffective redundancy in law I suppose.
Does the council presume to assume representation for the offended party?

They can bring pressure to bear by threatening licensing and appealing to the FCC, but that is about all. Seems they're trying to establish accountability, with LA city government as the authority. I'm assuming they are not attempting to establish a precedent wherein they become the 'beneficiary' in punitive damages.
But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before...

No matter their intentions, it all just smacks of political posturing to me.

BTW, Libel is permissible, just penalizable...

I'm going to quote from Joe for a moment.

/The repeated quote is really kind of trollish on my part and only needs one, but ignoring a major point central to someone's argument to make that post is sort of... :(

Hehe.

One thing to bear in mind is that there are (as an oversimplification) two types of law, and two types of court.

In civil law, one party can "sue" another party to seek compensation for some wrongdoing, in the form of "damages." However, one cannot, for instance, be sentenced to prison or required to pay a fine to a municipality in a civil case. Civil suits are always between one person and another person. A personal injury case would be one example of a civil suit.

Criminal law is a different affair. In criminal law, the plaintiff is always "the people" (as represented by the district attorney of the city, county, state, etc). In criminal law, the defendant, if found guilty, can be sentenced to incarceration, be compelled to pay fines, etc. Traffic court is probably the most common example of the criminal court system. (Yes, technically you are "under arrest" when you get a traffic ticket, and are a criminal defendant until you either pay the fine or see the judge.)


Usually, libel is tried in the civil court, wherein the "victim" attempts to seek a remedy (usually in the form of money and an apology / retraction) from the person who libeled them.


It would not, therefore, be redundant for a city council to pass a law which allows for libel to be prosecuted in the criminal court.


In re-reading the article which Braineack posted, however, I noticed something which I'd missed before, despite being in the lead paragraph:

City Council members were one step closer on Wednesday to becoming the first in the nation to adopt a resolution condemning certain types of speech on public airwaves.

A resolution doesn't mean jack ѕhіt. It's just a motion that says "this is how we feel about such-and-such." It isn't law, and has absolutely zero force in any court. The city council could pass a resolution stating "We don't like gay Jewish black people from Ireland" and it would make no difference at all.


Also, for what it's worth, the resolution already passed on a 13-2 vote yesterday.

no more besties:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...t-friends.html

No more hugging it out:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...-bans-hugging/

No more yelling at your cat:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/0...elling-at-cat/

Rights are bullshit they feed us to keep us in line.

The next time you catch yourself thinking about your "rights" just remember February 19, 1942

The bombing of Darwin, Australia?

Executive order 9066

Liberals and coloreds should have their First Amendment rights revoked.

In for blaen99's new signature, or a pairing.

Blaen, dude, decaf...:rofl: You'll live longer...
I'm not takin' it that serious, and I don't think Joe is either. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, mmkay? :makeout:
BTW, what Brain is doing is hilarious...



Right Joe, I saw 'resolution' and that's what I was referring to in my comments above.

A difference that has come to my attention; apparently California, among others, have City Prosecutors. I'm only familiar with Florida law, which prosecution comes through the State Attorney's office.
In light of this, city regs/laws while being 'redundant', make sense in Calif's system.
Sorry for the confusion. Maybe you can understand my bewilderment in the city law issue.

Case in point http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...0#.T2uuuGHlNuM

That's pretty interesting.

On the one hand, kudos to Ms. Allred for digging up what must have been a very obscure law and figuring out a way to profit from it.

On the other hand, this is a woman who got up in front of Congress and essentially said "I want you to pay for birth control pills so that I can have sex for the purpose of recreation."

To me, it sounds like she has self-identified as a slut, and Limbaugh's assertion to that point is probably not libelous. If he called her a prostitute on the air (by name), then that's a much higher standard, as he would need to prove that she had sex in exchange for either money or something of tangible value, such as birth-control pills. Unless she is banging the doc at the clinic on campus, that's probably not defensible.

This will end with an undisclosed, out-of-court settlement.

The State Attorney's Office won't touch it. It's not politically expedient and doesn't serve the constituents of the State of Florida.
Read: It will cost money we really don't have, therefore not interested. :)

The State Attorney may not agree to a criminal prosecution, but if Sandra Fluke has half a brain (and since she's a Cornell graduate and law student at Georgetown, she probably does) she will bring a civil suit against Limbaugh for libel. It'll be a flimsy one, as even though I'm not familiar with Florida's stance on Defamation per se, accusing a 23 year old slut of being a prostitute is hardly the most damaging thing I can think of. But it doesn't matter, and EIB will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum as they always do, with which Fluke can buy all the birth control pills she could ever need.

That said, I would do her. She's a hottie, and will probably wind up wielding political power.

I agree with you here. 'Tis cheaper to settle than pay lawyers' fees.
Speaking of teh hotness, have ya seen our State Attorney?
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1332476093
Whoo-Hoo for Florida!

Ouch. :facepalm:

Joe, did you read her testimony, and just where did you come up with this from?

Yes, I did read all of her testimony.

To paraphrase her testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee:

Hi, my name is Sandra Fluke. I am knowingly and voluntarily attending a Jesuit-Catholic university (one whose policies reflect the beliefs and traditions of the church). Despite the fact that I have chosen to attend this university of my own volition, I am upset that the student health plan does not pay for birth control pills, even though I know that the use of birth control pills and the concept of extra-marital intercourse is contrary to the traditional viewpoints of the Catholic church.

I cannot afford to pay for birth control pills on my own, and I find the use of condoms to be unsatisfactory, so I want somebody else to pay for my birth control pills so that I can have unprotected sex in a consequence-free environment. Thank you.

Full text of her testimony here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sandra...2_February_23)


Definition of the word "Slut" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:Sandra Fluke is definitely a slut from the point of view of the Catholic Church, which is relevant given the context of who she expects to pay for her birth control pills. She is probably not a prostitute in any legally-recognizable sense of the word.

I am surprised, Joe. Either I'm misreading that, or you are playing unusually loose and fast with definitions for you.

Seriously, this is the only part in her entire speech that can be taken this way, and the only paragraph that is not directly related to arguing for women's healthcare.

blaen, she's a -----, youre a statist-liberal. there's no denying it. you can say all you want, but thems da facts.

Very well Brainy. Then let's look at her entire speech.

Oh, she's introducing herself. Okay, well, I don't know where you could get slut from that.

So, she introduces her background. I don't see any promiscuity comments or sleeping around here, how about you Brainy?

Is she calling the entire campus sluts here Brainy?

So, she cites the cost of contraceptive care, notes that she's on a scholarship, and the cost of contraceptive care equals an entire summer's salary. She relates personal stories of people who are affected, damn, she MUST be a slut for knowing people who use contraception, right Brainy? (Sarcasm)

Okay. I'm not seeing "slut" here, although she is calling the Republicans out on their hypocrisy.

Still not understanding how this paragraph can lead to her self-identifying as a slut.

Still not understanding.

She has a friend with PCOS. She must be a slut by association, right Brainy?

She had a friend who was raped, she MUST be a slut who wants free contraceptives for sex all over the campus, right Brainy?

And the people here who *claim* to be free market types may want to read the bolded part. But damn, she MUST be a slut because she wants unsubsidized insurance that SHE pays for to cover her medical needs, right?

Daaaamn, no she di'nt! Oh snap, no she DI'NT Brainy!

Hehe. Loose and Fast, just like Sandra Fluke. :giggle:


Seriously, though. How am I distorting the facts? Georgetown is a Jesuit-Catholic university. It was founded by John Carroll, an Archbishop in the Catholic Church, and it is a founding member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. The university's own website refers prominently to:

• Catholicism’s rich and diverse intellectual tradition
• A "Commitment to Faith"
• Georgetown's mission to integrate learning, faith and service through a broad array of programs, and
• Our Catholic and Jesuit identity and respectfully engaging the particular traditions represented in our community

The Catholic Church has historically taken a very public stance against contraception. Why is it reasonable for a student at a Catholic university to demand that the university's student healthcare plan pay for something that the Catholic church opposes?

Oh life is so hard. I can afford to go to a $60,000 a year school but i can't walk down the street to one of the three local planned parnethoods and get birth control for $20/mo a pop.

only if you go to school for over 12 years will that equal more than $3,000.


all hearsay, all half truths, all entitled-moronic-sluts.

All right, so have we gotten past the stale and tired "She said she was a slut!" argument then Joe?

I would understand - if it was something that the university subsidized and it was solely for contraception used for birth control. The university doesn't pay a damn dime to it, and Fluke provided a great deal of detail where the university and insurance company were violating their provided contract when the contraception was used for non-birth control purposes.

did she? because apparently someone got a huge ovanian cyst and was denied coverage for birth control.


first off birth control treatment does not prevent them and would not have helped "her friend" in this case.

and second massive tennis ball cysts aren't a symptom of polycystic ovary syndrome.


weird huh? but hearsay is admissable in court.

Brainy, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how PCOS works.

http://www.inciid.org/faq.php?cat=infertility101&id=2 will hopefully clear up some of those misconceptions. As a bonus, I found a site that has "Cat" in the link just for you.

Actually, they are $9 per month at the Columbia Heights Target pharmacy 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus. It says so right at the Target website: http://sites.target.com/site/en/spot...rugs_condition (scroll all the way down to the bottom and look for "TRI-SPRINTEC 28-DAY" under Women's Health.)


Well, it's kind of tangential to the core argument, but I still don't see how you can argue that a woman who, in the context of being a student at a Catholic university, says "I want you to give me free birth control pills so that I can have unprotected sex with a person who I am not married to for the purpose of recreation," has not self-identified as a member of the group "slut" as it would be defined by the church.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as I find strong-willed, politically-motivated women sexy, so the more loose law school students we have in the country, the better my odds get.


Also, this thread seems to be drifting, so I want to be clear that I'm referring only to the slut who stood up in front of Congress to demand free birth control pills, not her allegedly cyst-riddled friend who couldn't figure out how to go to a free clinic and who may or may not be a hottie. (I haven't seen a picture.)

Yes, and I hear we all throw eBay stuff on every part of our cars. The ebay parts may work for some specific applications, Joe, but other types of contraceptive can get very expensive - and arguing that kind of contraception works for certain issues is about as effective as arguing that an eBay manifold works for Failflora's 600hp build.

And yet, I've even quoted her entire speech, and went through the whole goddamn thing to disprove the myth that she said this, Joe. Please, point out to me ANY point in which she said any of this.

:bowrofl: Nice tie-in

show me where it says that you can get huge cysts and where birth control pills will treat them, prevent them, or reduce the size of them.


im calling her a slut because i can. i dont give a flying fart what she said to her pal polesi and what she assumsed when enrolling in a private institution with their own rules.

i know everything im covered under my health care plan, and i went to art school.

and honestly, if you want to play that game, rush techincally called her a prostitute and not a slut.

I'm just going to point you again to the link, and entreat you to read the quotation fully again.

But just for you...http://ovarian-cyst-relief.com/pcos-...this-condition

That site is not comprehensive like the last, but FFS, if I have to do that, I'll do that.

P.S. This is where all birth control is not the same originates from.

Roger, so you don't care about the truth or facts of the situation, and just want to say what you want to have happened by putting words in her mouth that she didn't say in the first place?

Damn, this sounds like a recent argument.

P.S. I'm enjoying the ninja edits guys, I'm going to just sit and wait a few minutes before posting in the future. And totally engaging in massive ninja edits myself at this point.

Assuming the above is all true and the insurance policy does not have specific exclusions for contraceptive-focused prescriptions, maybe you have a contract violation.

My question is, if the students genuinely pay 100% of the insurance premiums (aka they are totally unsubsidized by the university or anyone else), then why can't she just go get private health insurance that is tailored to her specific needs and desires? If there are enough female students with the same issues, why don't they form a group and go get group health insurance policies?