| Author |
Message |
    
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7863
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 9:38 am: | 
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/31/sex.offender.suit.ap/index.html |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
I didn't know "attending church" was a right.
-SLK |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
I guess it IS kind of a tough call. Where can you send convicted child molesters? France?
(That's an obscure reference but I bet someone picks up on it quickly). |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7873
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
Gigi?
Did you ever see "My Father the Hero"? I peed myself in the piano bar scene. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
My error - less obscure than that. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
It was post-Manson trauma. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
Bingo! Apparently the proper course of grieving (in France) is as follows: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance... followed by drugging a 13 year old and having sex with her. |
kriss
Citizen
Username: Kriss
Post Number: 308
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 4:06 am: |
|
http://www.aclu.org
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7892
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 9:50 am: |
|
Kriss- I'm not saying that ACLU does not do some good things. However, I do not support the "free speech at any cost" thing. I cannot deal with an organization that fights for the freedom to speak hatred and incite violence. They lost me when I was in college, helping to organize an anti-KKK protest and the ACLU went to court to fight the Klan's being denied a permit to hold a rally on the steps on City Hall on the MLK holiday. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6425
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
Again....I post this quote..
Quote:Everybody knows America isn't easy. America is
advanced citizenship.
SHEPHERD
(continuing)
You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's
gonna put up a fight. It's gonna
say, "You want free speech? Let's
see you acknowledge a man whose words
make your blood boil, who's standing
center stage and advocating, at the
top of his lungs, that which you
would spend a lifetime opposing at the
top of yours. You want to claim
this land as the land of the free,
then the symbol of your country can't
just be a flag; the symbol also has
to be one of its citizens exercising
his right to burn that flag in
protest." Show me that, defend that,
celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about
the land of the free.
written by the drug addicted radical left wing wacko Aaron Sorkin. one of the best writers of the last 25 years. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7896
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
If Andy Shepherd were Prez, maybe I'd think differently.
Just my opinion. There're a lot of "freedoms" that I disagree with. Some laws and rules contribute so much to society in the way of "positives" that it is worth losing the "freedom" from those laws and rules. Complete freedom would be anarchy, no? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14568
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
This may seem like a sideways question, but it's key. If some speech should be free and other speech should be restricted, WHO gets to decide which speech is which?
Appointing an arbiter of things like this -- or rather the impossibility of appointing the right person to take the job -- is the reason we have to free all speech, good and bad.
So again. I won't ask you which speech is good and which is bad. I'm asking WHO should decide.
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3405
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Good point, Tom. I would elect you to decide in all cases, because you strive to be so fair and balanced (and succeed more often than not), but that might take too much time away from your job search. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 7898
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Me!
Seriously, I suppose that it would be no different than what we have in place. I'm not saying that I think that they are in any way competent, but there are bodies like the FCC.
Imagine an intelligent, unbiased, non-politicized (if Duncan can have Michael Douglas as POTUS, I can have this) body that decides only whether a particular form of speech incites hatred, disrimination or direct violence against others. I'm not talking about arresting someone for what they say chatting with other people. But, if someone gets up on a street corner with a bullhorn and talks about shooting Mexicans at the border, for example, they should be told to stop. And if they fail to stop, then arrested. And no governement entity should be obligated to grant a permit for a rally or march to a group who advocates violence.
So, you could burn a flag. If it pisses someone off and they decide to start a brawl, you did not incite that violence. If you make a speech at that flag burning to throw rocks through the window of any home flying a flag, that is inciting violence.
If you are convicted of child molestation with solid evidence, then the protection of children from potential harm is more important than your "freedom" to walk by a playground. Why doesn't the ACLU take on child safety seat laws? Is that not an infringement on parental rights?
In my fantasy world of reasonable unbiased people, my "Free Speech Panel" would easily distinguish these things. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3406
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Interesting intersection of reality and MOL.
Just got a phone call from a dear friend in Rockland County. He is an arch-arch conservative who constantly vilifies liberal organizations--and especially the ACLU, who he hates as much as he hates the KKK. I have told him before that I do not consider the ACLU liberal--rather, they are libertarian in the extreme when it comes to First Amendment exercises. He pooh-poohs this.
Anyhow, turns out his school district just got a huge cash donation from a family in town, with the money to be used to place mangers in each school lobby for the Christmas season. The district is accepting the gift and the conditions. My friend is Jewish, counts many friends in his community who are Hindu or agnostic, and is flipping out. So, he calls me and says, "I am calling in the ACLU on this one." I could only laugh and congratulate him.
You may not like everything the ACLU fights for, but the fact that they are there fighting the fight in a princpled and relatively consistent manner should give us all some comfort. I would be worried if I agreed with every cause they try to protect, because that would mean that they were being more doctrinal than holding to the principle of absolute rights to political speech. I am glad that I disagree with some of their clients, but I cannot disagree with the reason they chose to defend those clients. The fact that the ACLU wins some of these cases and the world does not end means that our constitutional system is working more than less. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3407
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Greenetree--Vive la reine! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14573
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
greenetree, you disappoint me. The FCC has limited judgement freedom on obscenity only because the airwaves are a scarce resource. Street corners where one can stand on a soapbox are not.
I don't think you understand what you are advocating: a general speech censorship department. With Bush in power, do you trust that such an institution would protect everyone's interests equally? Remember his "for us or against us" viewpoint and how hard it is to define simple concepts like what "us" is.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3287
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
It's not just Bush. Free Speech should not be politicized. It should not be about the whims of the majority. Remember, the Constitution is in place to defend the rights of everyone, not just the majority.
Consider what would happen if some Department of Speech Protection had retro-active authority. Anything you say today could be used against you in the future. Consider the stifling effect this would have on all speech, political or not. What would happen if Bush (or a very religious President) decided that any speech that denied the existence of G-d was obscene, and not protected? What about the reverse - an avowed atheist who decided that religious speech was persecutory toward non-believers?
There is a reason we are a Nation of Laws, not Men. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Well the law is unconstitutionally vague. They did their time. They shouldn't be barred from driving on the highway because it passes within 1,000 feet of a park, pool, or whatever the third one was. |
Joe R.
Citizen
Username: Ragnatela
Post Number: 471
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
I think I know what they hope to accomplish with this goofy law, but give me a break, Anyone who suppports this law is really saying, if you committed this offense, stay in your house or move to the desert. This will be one of the easier cases ACLU has taken on in recent memory.
'I didn't know "attending church" was a right. '...Come on, SLK. I think you knew that.
|
Marty Tuohy
Supporter
Username: Martyt
Post Number: 84
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Glock
Are you saying that you think the law is unconstitutionally vague BECAUSE the convicted individuals "did their time" so this prohibition is an illegal additional penalty ...
... OR are you saying the law is unconstitutionally vague and, in addition to being unconstitutionally vague, you think it is also an illegal additional penalty.
I think there are a number of problems with the ordinance but, on the surface, the vagueness argument seems like a tough one for the ACLU to win on. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
I think it's just ridiculous. If they live in a city...forget it. They won't be able to walk down the street without being in violation of that. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
I actually agree. It is overly restrictive. If you don't want sex offenders to walk the streets, make the punishments more severe. In many places, as Glock points out, it would be impossible for someone to walk down the street.
Obviously the intent of the bill is to prevent sex offenders from living in certain areas. I can appreciate the desire to make it uncomfortable, if not impossible, for a predator to live nearby. Perhaps we should empty out Manhattan and turn it into one big walled off city. Sexual predators can be sent there to prey on each other. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
And then they can meet up with Snake Pliskin and fight their way to safety.
 |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2850
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I'd be less worried about sex offenders if we could apply permanent tattoos to their face in an area that couldn't be covered.
I think the prob with sex offenders in particular is that most suspect that hardcore pedofiles have an issue that goes well beyond time served and that may, at any point, re-erupt. I'm making a distinction (probably legally indefensible) between adults who do horrible things to children under 13, and 19 year olds who have consensual sex with 16 year olds.
I wish the former could be permanently housed somewhere pleasant, where they can work and thrive, but behind bars. No matter how they got that way, it's not good for society to have them to be out among children and others. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3348
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Cynical, I agree. Unfortunately, I think it would require someone to stand up and say that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to permanently remove these people from our society, without killing them. It is ironic that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual, but removing people from our society might be. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Why not...find out what's wrong with our society or with human nature that creates these types of criminals...instead of hiding it away with an "out-of-sigh out-of-mind" kind of approach? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3350
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
And once we know what causes it, eliminate it? What if it's genetic? Part of it is likely a cycle of violence and sexual predation in their past.
Studies have shown that sexual predators have the highest recidivism rate among criminals. It's not like people are not researching this stuff. But that will not change the thousands of predators that are already on the streets or waiting to be released from prison.
This is not like hiding away your crazy uncle because he embarasses you. It's about keeping predators away from the population they are most likely to prey upon. You wouldn't put lions and antelopes together in a zoo. Why would you allow the equivalent in our society? |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2655
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
What makes anyone think "society" creates sexual predators? As far as I can see there are pedophiles and rapists every modern culture and lots of ancient ones as well (altho perhaps not as well documented.) I think I like CG's idea. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3351
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Did someone say society creates sexual predators? |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2657
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Rastro - from Glock's post above: ...find out what's wrong with our society or with human nature that creates these types of criminals" |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3354
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 9:47 pm: |
|
missed that, thanks. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 77
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 1:26 am: |
|
These people are sick, but I have to agree that there are problems with the law. They meant it to be protection for children playing in these areas, but it's actually (inadvertently) giving a level of protection to children who live near parks, pools and playgrounds. These areas will become more desirable to parents with children which will increase real-estate demand. If something like this stays on the books long term you will likely see pedophiles being outcast to fringe area's in any given town where they can live without violating the law. The problem is they won't be living alone. They will be neighbors of less affluent family's who couldn't afford the more desirable "safe" zones.
On the other hand, I'm all for chemical castration. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8003
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/10/klan.antietam.ap/index.html
And yet the impetus for Congress' intervention was Fred Phelps.... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page