 
     |
| A whole bunch of states trying to ban guns. (Page 6/6) |
|
BingB
|
JUN 02, 11:51 AM
|
|
Yes. Proof that the Supreme Court can put limits on a person's "free speech".
Vullo was wrong. As a public official you should address changes in policy through laws, not back door threats.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JUN 02, 03:46 PM
|
|
So can judges in New York City, from all appearances....
Although, as an acting agent of the government, she would have the right to speak freely as a private citizen, but would not have the right to impose her personal vendetta in the manner in which she did.
I don't see the ruling of SCOTUS as limiting her right to free speech. She was coercing the businesses she was supposed to be regulating. I see that as a different situation.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JUN 02, 04:15 PM
|
|
the question is still unanswered
how many kids do you want to kill every year
for your right to be a gun nut
I say for your lot FAR TOOO MANY
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JUN 02, 04:30 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Yes. Proof that the Supreme Court can put limits on a person's "free speech".
|
|
You are clueless, as usual. No such proof is presented. No such concept is implied.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, which begins:
| quote | | Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. |
|
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."
Think about that for a minute...
OK, who am I kidding? You will not think about it. I know you are not capable of understanding it.
And no, I will not waste my time trying to help you.
Again, the time for negotiation has passed. No explanation is due.
|
|
|
|
Doug85GT
|
JUN 02, 08:41 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
the question is still unanswered
how many kids do you want to kill every year
for your right to be a gun nut
I say for your lot FAR TOOO MANY |
|
A kid's life is ended with each abortion. This might be hard to figure out for a leftist but which is a bigger number? 930,160 or 2,590.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JUN 02, 09:29 PM
|
|
|
The shame of it all is that gang related violence accounts for a large percentage of the kids being killed in a shooting. The police in many cities know who and where the gang members are but don't do anything about them. It's predominantly black on black crime, but the government seemingly ignores the problem.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JUN 02, 09:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JUN 02, 10:40 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."
Think about that for a minute...
OK, who am I kidding? You will not think about it. I know you are not capable of understanding it.
And no, I will not waste my time trying to help you.
Again, the time for negotiation has passed. No explanation is due.
|
|
His inability to fully understand it very likely extends far beyond just the instant 2nd Amendment issue
An insightful comment from the article:
"This lesson should be learned, and the amendment’s letter observed, not just by direct government regulators and enforcement officials. Government entities such as public schools and state colleges, too, must be bastions of free speech. A state college dean or professor no less than a state financial services regulator must not use viewpoint discrimination to penalize speech
Doubtless, our Leftards never imagined that NRA v Vullo could end up curtailing their heretofore unfettered use of public school classrooms to propagandize and indoctrinate.
|
|
|
|