[QUOTE=TH89;27364305]Armchair legal expert ITT[/QUOTE]
Ad Hominem, I win!
[QUOTE=macacan;27364399]Ad Hominem, I win![/QUOTE]
That wasn't ad hominem. He didn't disregard your argument because of your character, he disregarded your character because of your argument. Total opposite.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;27364423]That wasn't ad hominem. He didn't disregard your argument because of your character, he disregarded your character because of your argument. Total opposite.[/QUOTE]
He provided no rebuttal, only comment on my character.
Posting content without source should be banned. WBC does this every fucking single time.
[QUOTE=macacan;27364448]He provided no rebuttal, only comment on my character.[/QUOTE]
You don't have an argument. All you did was post the First Amendment and say "see I'm right."
I could point out that the text of the amendment is so vague that you could interpret it pretty much however you want, or that similar laws have been struck down as unconstitutional in the past, but instead I'm just going to say that the First Amendment is one of the most contentious documents in the history of the United States and saying "here is the First Amendment, anyone who disagrees with me about how to interpret it is wrong" when you have no legal training whatsoever is both ignorant and arrogant.
[QUOTE=TH89;27364618]You don't have an argument. All you did was post the First Amendment and say "see I'm right."
I could point out that the text of the amendment is so vague that you could interpret it pretty much however you want, or that similar laws have been struck down as unconstitutional in the past, but instead I'm just going to say that the First Amendment is one of the most contentious documents in the history of the United States and saying "here is the First Amendment, anyone who disagrees with me about how to interpret it is wrong" when you have no legal training whatsoever is both ignorant and arrogant.[/QUOTE]
Touché, not to mention the article I posted that legalese from is the Human Rights Act 1998 passed in Britain and is completely unrelated to the USA, though they are derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations.
But really, if arguing on the internet mattered, I probably wouldn't do it.
[QUOTE=macacan;27364728]Touché, not to mention the article I posted that legalese from is the Human Rights Act 1998 passed in Britain and is completely unrelated to the USA, though they are derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations.[/QUOTE]
It's a more accessibly-worded version of the First Amendment. Which was invented by America. :patriot:
[QUOTE=TH89;27364802]It's a more accessibly-worded version of the First Amendment. Which was invented by America. :patriot:[/QUOTE]
Correction: Better version.
The first amendment doesn't allow for restrictions on freedom of assembly, which is why the ban on funeral protests will be overturned.
[quote=macacan]This isn't a violation of anybody's rights. Freedom of assembly does not mean you can protest where ever you want, it means that you are allowed to get together with like minded people to express, promote and defend common interests. Where it can be done is never mentioned in any federal legislature.[/quote]
[QUOTE=macacan;27364886]The first amendment doesn't allow for restrictions on freedom of assembly, which is why the ban on funeral protests will be overturned.[/QUOTE]
Wait, which side are you on.
[QUOTE=TH89;27364974]Wait, which side are you on.[/QUOTE]
I said nothing contradictory, the first amendment says, specifically, you have the right to peaceably assemble. It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say that it can be done anywhere; nor does it say it can be restricted.
The side I'm on is the side where the the picketing ban is understood to not violate anybody's rights.
The stuff I posted from the Human Rights Act I thought was relevant when I first found it, but its not.
So you think it will be overturned, but you don't think it should be?
[QUOTE=macacan;27365317]I said nothing contradictory, the first amendment says, specifically, you have the right to peaceably assemble. It doesn't say anything else. It doesn't say that it can be done anywhere; nor does it say it can be restricted.
The side I'm on is the side where the the picketing ban is understood to not violate anybody's rights.
The stuff I posted from the Human Rights Act I thought was relevant when I first found it, but its not.[/QUOTE]
first amendment limitations have been done before. if you studied a little about the first world war you'd find this out, and then it was deemed within constitutional rights. also the limitations were needed in order to maintain public order. that can apply to this law as well.
edit: jesus christ i worded that horribly. apologies but i'm really sick :(
[QUOTE=TH89;27365409]So you think it will be overturned, but you don't think it should be?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. Hopefully, as SleepyHead posted, it won't be.
Bear in mind, I'm only interested in this from an ethical standpoint since I'm British, but anything that restricts a hateful group from achieving their goals is worth taking an interest in anywhere.
Overturned or not, it will have done what it's meant to before this is over.
For those people saying that this is a stupid law. This law is to stop WBC from protesting at Funerals. All that WBC protests is about how the people who died are fag enablers and was glad that god smited them down. They've done the same exact shit at Military Funerals and Elizabeth Edwards' funeral.
They picketed Ronnie James Dio's funeral too.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;27366267]For those people saying that this is a stupid law. This law is to stop WBC from protesting at Funerals. All that WBC protests is about how the people who died are fag enablers and was glad that god smited them down. They've done the same exact shit at Military Funerals and Elizabeth Edwards' funeral.[/QUOTE]
who cares? god some of you people need to grow some thicker skin. just shows how powerful people make the wbc that they're changing laws specifically to combat them.
I'm totally alright with this. Knowing the amount of people that came from all around the country too this to stop them, it could of gotten ugly with the amount of known milita groups which reside in Arizona.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;27366928]who cares? god some of you people need to grow some thicker skin. just shows how powerful people make the wbc that they're changing laws specifically to combat them.[/QUOTE]
If it was my funeral I'd get up and rip out their kidneys for disrespecting my departing ceremony and peoples last chance to say goodbye and i'd rip the fucking balls off you if you dared show up and repeat that just because you want everyone to feel good and tickly. Ballsy little fuck. Get a fuckin' perspective.
Quite a cunning trick; it'll be overturned, but not before the funeral has taken place.
Thank god, WBC has failed.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;27367077]If it was my funeral I'd get up and rip out their kidneys for disrespecting my departing ceremony and peoples last chance to say goodbye and i'd rip the fucking balls off you if you dared show up and repeat that just because you want everyone to feel good and tickly. Ballsy little fuck. Get a fuckin' perspective.[/QUOTE]
you've got serious issues and i'm glad you're not making the laws.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;27367077]If it was my funeral I'd get up and rip out their kidneys for disrespecting my departing ceremony and peoples last chance to say goodbye and i'd rip the fucking balls off you if you dared show up and repeat that just because you want everyone to feel good and tickly. Ballsy little fuck. Get a fuckin' perspective.[/QUOTE]
ahahaha wow man how could you even do that you'd be dead lol... idiot. sheesh, at least wbc arent violent.
Fuck you ! Fucking West Baptist Church
They should be allowed to "protest", all thou the reason is fucking bullshit.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;27368911]They should be allowed to "protest", all thou the reason is fucking bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Here we go with more of these "Let them protest" guys.
They aren't stopping the picketing, only preventing them from picketing at a funeral. Perfectly constitutional to stop them from disturbing the peace, right?
Why let them picket someone that died and tell their friends and family that they will burn in hell and deserved it?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;27367596]you've got serious issues and i'm glad you're not making the laws.[/QUOTE]
So i got issues because i want my funeral ceremony to go unharrassed and won't tolerate those swineshits protesting at it? I don't know where you're from, but roundabout here... How about they come to yours?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;27369196]So i got issues because i want my funeral ceremony to go unharrassed and won't tolerate those swineshits protesting at it? I don't know where you're from, but roundabout here... How about they come to yours?[/QUOTE]
no, you have issues because you want to kill people because they say mean things at funerals.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;27369262]no, you have issues because you want to kill people because they say mean things at funerals.[/QUOTE]
Makes him sound mentally disturbed. Don't look at him, he might flip out and try to stab you.
[QUOTE=J!NX;27368951]Here we go with more of these "Let them protest" guys.
They aren't stopping the picketing, only preventing them from picketing at a funeral. Perfectly constitutional to stop them from disturbing the peace, right?
Why let them picket someone that died and tell their friends and family that they will burn in hell and deserved it?[/QUOTE]
Trust me i would love to see them get run over by a redneck pickup. But logic and freedom should go before pity morals.
And i fucking hope someone film them when they ragdoll trough the air after a pickup hit them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
