First Amendment?

[TonyC]

Apparently, the "innocent until proven guilty" theory of law applies to this board, but the First Amendment does not.

I failed to realize that when I accused ifly4food of being hypocritical, he had the power of a moderator to remove my thread. He closed the thread that I referenced after he had the last word, and now I suppose he'll delete this thread.

Be careful forming and voicing your opinions, folks. You can be removed!

 

[Super 80]

Tony,

This is their board. If you came in my house and started calling me names, I'd shut you up by putting you out of my house too.

Secondly, the first amendment only applies to situations that are the purvey of Congress, and even then your liberal buddies on the Supreme Court have decided that political speech, the very essence of free speech can corrupt, and so they have upheld McCain-Feingold campaign reform restrictions on free speech because of the government's interest in keeping corruption out of politics.

 

[A Squared]

Oh, jeezzzz, another one of those without a clue what the first ammendment means.

Look tony, here's a simple way of understanding what the first ammendment actually means:

THe first ammendment says you can paint "GW Bush is an idiot" on the side of your house and the federal government can't do anything about it. (there may be local zoning or sign ordinances which apply) It does NOT mean you can paint "GW Bush is an idiot" on the side of *my* house.

this is Ifly4food's house ... ok, well it's Mark's house and Ifly4food is mark's representative.

I don't always like the way Ifly4food uses his moderator position (we've had words on this before) but it's not a first ammendment issue. Ultimately, if you don't like the policies, you are free to post elsewhere.

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

This is their board. If you came in my house and started calling me names, I'd shut you up by putting you out of my house too.

Secondly, the first amendment only applies to situations that are the purvey of Congress, and even then your liberal buddies on the Supreme Court have decided that political speech, the very essence of free speech can corrupt, and so they have upheld McCain-Feingold campaign reform restrictions on free speech because of the government's interest in keeping corruption out of politics.

Super 80,

You might be surprised how close our opinions fall, if not about riddles. I realize that it's not my board, and that's why I forced myself to cool off before I responded to the thread removal. In fact, the statement I made on that thread was less abrasive, in my opinion, than my recap here. I said on that thread (you could go look at it yourself had it not been removed) that his remarks about the "innocent until proven guilty" theory seemed "a bit hypocritical" in light of his AVATAR and its accompanying heading. Apparently, he has passed judgment on Daley, but nobody here is allow to voice an opinion on a news story.

As for the liberals on the Supreme Court, I can assure you, they are no buddies of mine. It makes me want to vomit to see how they twist our Constitution, or rather their own ideas of what the Constituion would be if THEY had written it, and legislate society from their bench. Squelching the opinions that people have formed about an event that is in the headlines falls along the same lines as the corruption to which you refer.

I would certainly understand a moderator suggesting we stick to aviation related topics. I wouldn't even be offended if it was "my" thread that got closed for being off-topic. Clearly, though, such was not the case here. ifly4food closed the topic after I challenged him, and later he edited his post (on the closed thread) adding a line to make it look like it was closed because it was non-aviation related. I can't prove it, but I suspect he's the one that deleted "my" "And the last word goes to..." thread. I PMed him while he was on-line, but he has yet to respond. Whoever did it, didn't even pay the courtesy of explaining why.

To return to your observation about the First Amendment... "the first amendment only applies to situations that are the purvey of Congress." If you agree that First Amendment rights don't apply to this board (it belongs to them, it's "their house," they make the house rules), then you might also see that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to this board either. I'm not the only one that disagreed with ifly4food's assertion on that point, I'm just the only one that challenged his AVATAR.

Or, maybe I've just stumbled upon a truth that we all could learn from. Perhaps the rules of this board DO include "innocent until proven guilty." Perhaps we just need to know what the rest of the rules are, so we can fall in line.

Or perhaps I spend far too much time here.....


[From the background, wife yells "AAAAA-MEN!"]

 

[TonyC]

Oh, jeezzzz, another one of those without a clue what the first ammendment means.

Look tony, here's a simple way of understanding what the first ammendment actually means:

Thanks A Squared - - that's exactly what I expected. I know that the 1st Amendment doesn't give me the right to speak my peace in your house, or Mark's house, or anybody else's house, for that matter. I also know that raising the 1st Amendment as an issue invokes debate.

I also know that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal theory that does NOT apply to the court of public opinion. ifly4food was trying to impose that theory, and cut us ALL off when I disagreed with him. He's allowed to form an opinion about Mayor Daley and Meigs Field, but we are NOT allowed to form an opinion about a prominent news story.

Doesn't seem consistent.

But you're right...

I'll remember where I am from now on...

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

well, at least you didn't get banned
but then again, none of what you said was liberal fodder for the right wingers to feast upon

and yes, this is Mark's house, and he pays the bills

 

[A Squared]

Tony,

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you on "the innocent until proven guilty" issue and if I were a moderator, I wouldn't have closed that thread....but that's just me.

 

[Northern Lights]

Back to the origional topic of the origional post...

Lets find Dru, and put away the scumbag responsible for her disappearance

www.finddru.com

www.grandforks.com

 

[Super 80]

If you agree that First Amendment rights don't apply to this board (it belongs to them, it's "their house," they make the house rules), then you might also see that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to this board either.

Actually, I'm heartened to find our opinions don't differ all that much on certain subjects. I think there are core issues that can unite across the typical "party" lines.

However I think the innocent until proven guilty defense is largely overplayed in American culture. For instance, I think Michael Jackson is weird. Here's a good-looking black kid in the original Jackson 5 that played in the black Wizard of Oz with all the moves he would use in Thriller that has become a very strange white looking faggot with hippy hair that belongs on his idol Elizabeth Taylor more than him that dangles babies over balconies and has sleep-overs at his deep-in-debt estate with little boys.

I say the little pervert ought to pay any penalty assessed to him, and unless I'm part of the Justice system I don't have to even have the pretext of impartiality in judging him beforehand. Hey it happens in the media everyday.

Now where his soul stands is beyond me to judge. I'm just going on appearances. All I can see is what this joker says and does, and that's pretty pathetic.

But innocent? I don't have to prove guilt to do that. Hey, you can sentence a man to death who's innocent even under the "law." That's already been done. Thank God.

 

[DrEvil]

Tony,

Shut your cake hole and click the Donate button and help Mark keep this board going! Show that this board is one that you want to return to tomorrow. I don't see your name on the donor list!

 

[TonyC]

Actually, I'm heartened to find our opinions don't differ all that much on certain subjects. I think there are core issues that can unite across the typical "party" lines.

However I think the innocent until proven guilty defense is largely overplayed in American culture.

... unless I'm part of the Justice system I don't have to even have the pretext of impartiality in judging him beforehand.

You might have confused me with somebody else, because I certainly would never cozy up to liberal members of the court. I agree with your post 100%, if I can overlook the "however." I share your sentiment about the "innocent until blah, blah, blah" thing in our society. We don't have to treat members of our society like upstanding citizens when they've clearly defiled all that we hold to be good and decent. Sure, they'll get their day in court, where they'll have a zealous defense and an impartial jury of their peers. Meanwhile, I am not required to act like they're innocent. Your example does a fine job of demonstrating the point.

Perhaps ifly4food misunderstood the point... perhaps I caught him on a bad day... who knows...

A nap awaits me - - ATL Out & Back in a little while.

Happy trails.

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

Shut your cake hole and click the Donate button and help Mark keep this board going! Show that this board is one that you want to return to tomorrow. I don't see your name on the donor list!

I had him on my Christmas list, honest. IF I haven't been banned by the 15th...


Merry Christmas !

 

[350DRIVER]

I failed to realize that when I accused ifly4food of being hypocritical, he had the power of a moderator to remove my thread. He closed the thread that I referenced after he had the last word, and now I suppose he'll delete this thread.

I agree, I had to laugh when he did that. I guess he could not come up with a response that he liked so simple solution was to delete the thread. Go figure.

Sure this one will be gone soon

3 5 0

 

[Timebuilder]

Before the thread is deleted, we need to think about what kind of speech the founders thought about when crafting the First Amendment. It was political speech. The supremes have just reduced the amount of legal political speech before an election, and dictated who may speak.

That's chilling.

 

[UpNDownGuy]

clarification...

Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, but the Supreme Court merely failed to overturn some provisions of a Law passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. If you have heartburn with this law (and believe me, everyone should), I suggest you go to the source: your duly elected representatives in Congress. They're the brain trust that came up with this in the first place.