Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby scikidus » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:10 pm UTC

As much as I loathe the WBC, I understand their rights. I also think Phelps' funeral should set a world record for largest human male orgy, but I understand their rights.
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Berge
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:49 am UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Berge » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:23 pm UTC

When Bill O'Reilly thinks you're too far to the right, just how far from the pack have you strayed?
Image

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Kayangelus » Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:28 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
So you are saying that because if this was skinheads, the KKK, or Muslim-extremists we would have ignored their rights and fined them for a perfectly legal course of action, the solution is to ignore the rights of the church members as well instead of making sure to respect the rights of the other groups?

Honestly, it doesn't matter how dispicable the actions of the church is. It doesn't matter how honorable O'Reilley's clause is. The church is being sued for a completely legal. We can't punish them just because their actions disagree with our morals. This right of theirs comes straight from the US constitution. A literal interpretation of it too. If the constitution says you can do something, and you are not breaking any existing law with it, your course of action is legal, and you should not be sued for it.


I'm saying two things: 1.) The law ought to be applied equally and 2.) I think that thre right to grieve in peace, free from harrassment, is clearly a right, at least, it is for any country without its head so far up its leagalistic ass it can't speak for choking on its own tonsils.


Well, whether the right to grieve in peace exists depends more on the religious beliefs and morals that the country is founded on, rather than how "far up its legalistic ass" you might happen to find its head. Now, sure it might be an important right, but I believe not all rights are equal. You should not have your freedom of speech taken from you, no matter how badly you might hurt someone's feelings, or no matter how big of a jack ass you are with them. What words upset people is far too subjective. And I honestly don't see much of a difference between shutting someone up for hurting your feelings with words, and shutting them up because they do not share your opinions on a matter. Though of course, this is entirely subjective.

That said, yes, I agree the law ought to be applied equally. Everyone should be allowed to be a jack ass in words only.

Kain
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:29 am UTC
Location: At the center of the observable universe.

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Kain » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:32 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
Le1bn1z wrote:
Kayangelus wrote:
So you are saying that because if this was skinheads, the KKK, or Muslim-extremists we would have ignored their rights and fined them for a perfectly legal course of action, the solution is to ignore the rights of the church members as well instead of making sure to respect the rights of the other groups?

Honestly, it doesn't matter how dispicable the actions of the church is. It doesn't matter how honorable O'Reilley's clause is. The church is being sued for a completely legal. We can't punish them just because their actions disagree with our morals. This right of theirs comes straight from the US constitution. A literal interpretation of it too. If the constitution says you can do something, and you are not breaking any existing law with it, your course of action is legal, and you should not be sued for it.


I'm saying two things: 1.) The law ought to be applied equally and 2.) I think that thre right to grieve in peace, free from harrassment, is clearly a right, at least, it is for any country without its head so far up its leagalistic ass it can't speak for choking on its own tonsils.


Well, whether the right to grieve in peace exists depends more on the religious beliefs and morals that the country is founded on, rather than how "far up its legalistic ass" you might happen to find its head. Now, sure it might be an important right, but I believe not all rights are equal. You should not have your freedom of speech taken from you, no matter how badly you might hurt someone's feelings, or no matter how big of a jack ass you are with them. What words upset people is far too subjective. And I honestly don't see much of a difference between shutting someone up for hurting your feelings with words, and shutting them up because they do not share your opinions on a matter. Though of course, this is entirely subjective.

That said, yes, I agree the law ought to be applied equally. Everyone should be allowed to be a jack ass in words only.


The only issue I have with what you have written there comes from the recent (last few years) news stories about teenagers committing suicide after intense bullying, which in at least one of the cases was limited to words and internet chats. We have freedom of speech, and I am all for that, and feel that it covers the right of the WBC to do their protests, just as it allowed the sons of the confederates or whatever they were called to do a march through homestead, and etc etc etc. However, that is not to say that hate speech and violent speech (a term i prefer to bullying, get it caught on!) should always covered by the First Amendment. When there is the clear intent to incite physical harm, I would say they have reached the end of their allowance, but of course, this is just an opinion, and the clear intent would be subjective.
Look, you know it's serious when a bunch of people in full armor and gear come charging in to fight a pond of chickens - Steax

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Le1bn1z » Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

This is why I hate written Charters and Codes of rights in constitutions. How quickly we lose sight of the purpose of the law and become so infatuated with the techno-babble of inward-looking ivory tower types.

It seems to me that these codes do nothing to advance human rights or dignity and in so many cases do the opposite.

Certainly, in the Canadian tradition, most of the great advances in rights came prior to the Charter and were based on a Principles-based constitutions: The abolition of slavery (Common law: England in 1772 and Scotland in 1774), Womens' Sufferage, First Nations' Sufferage and Rights, Civil Rights, Workers' Rights and Unions, the abolition of the death penalty and legalisation of homosexuality were all accomplished without a Charter.

Heck, even the greatest accomplishment of the Charter to date, the creation of equal status for same-sex marriages, was from an unenumerated right based on the principle of Equity, not on a direct right.

In the United States, the legalistic conception of rights based on the Constitution, gave and gives legimacy to slavery (the reason they went with the system in the first place) the continued persecution of minorities and the curtailing of the rights of minorities (as the majority gets to decide, via narrow-scope rights, who gets rights and who does not.)

Essentially, these rights have little, if anything, to do with justice. This interpretation of the "right to free speech" is clearly nothing more than a nod and a wink to abusive behaviour which would never be tolerated were it levelled at another group, say if NAMBLA held a rally outside a kindergarten by hurling cat-calls at 6 year olds.

We protect female judges from sexual harassment, despite the curtailement of free-speech, but won't let a family greive in peace.

The whole Constitutional Cannon of Rights in a crock.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:36 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:This is why I hate written Charters and Codes of rights in constitutions. How quickly we lose sight of the purpose of the law and become so infatuated with the techno-babble of inward-looking ivory tower types.

It seems to me that these codes do nothing to advance human rights or dignity and in so many cases do the opposite.

Certainly, in the Canadian tradition, most of the great advances in rights came prior to the Charter and were based on a Principles-based constitutions: The abolition of slavery (Common law: England in 1772 and Scotland in 1774), Womens' Sufferage, First Nations' Sufferage and Rights, Civil Rights, Workers' Rights and Unions, the abolition of the death penalty and legalisation of homosexuality were all accomplished without a Charter.

Canada, 1834... how'd that one get left out, I wonder?

But anyway, the constitution has made for some important political changes here, even if you don't count free speech protection as among it's victories I wouldn't call desegregation and decriminalization of sodomy trivial.

You really don't seem to have a clear idea of what you are arguing against. You stepped in here with obvious misconceptions of the scope of free speech in the United States, and now are resorting to trying to paint us as imbalanced in our approach since it is unlikely we'd let advocates of pedophilia openly proposition six year olds. Well, you got us, since we don't consider targeted sexual harassment as protected in the same manner as open political protests, we must be hypocrites.

The problem with thinking that you can somehow transcend the minutiae of the now by aiming for a higher "advancement of human rights" is that you are not the first to believe such a limitation on speech could be applied, and your vision of what exactly said advancement is is far and away from being the only one. How do you think evolution appealed to the Victorian sense of human dignity 150 years ago? Simply because you believe you've reached a level of conceptual understanding greater than our ancestors does not make you the arbiter of appropriate speech. If our society truly has become sufficiently enlightened as to move past an issue, let it die a natural death; forcing it only invites trouble.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Le1bn1z » Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:03 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
But anyway, the constitution has made for some important political changes here, even if you don't count free speech protection as among it's victories I wouldn't call desegregation and decriminalization of sodomy trivial.

You really don't seem to have a clear idea of what you are arguing against. You stepped in here with obvious misconceptions of the scope of free speech in the United States, and now are resorting to trying to paint us as imbalanced in our approach since it is unlikely we'd let advocates of pedophilia openly proposition six year olds. Well, you got us, since we don't consider targeted sexual harassment as protected in the same way as political process.


Actually, in Canada, the U.K. and the Commonwealth in general, all of those things were achieved without a Charter or Constitutional laundry list of rights. Again, Constitutional charters have not been necessary for the progress of rights in the free world. That's the point I am trying to make. In fact, such charters and codes can easily be twisted against human rights, as they are, especially in America, exclusionary codes not open to interpretation through principles of equity.

To be fair, America is no less or more imbalanced than most other Constitutional-Code based legal systems, Canada now included (though the tradition of Equity has carried over here to a greater extent.... but that's getting to deep into details.) Canada is at least as hypocritical on a whole host of issues, may favourite being that it is constitutionally valid to arbitrarily search people for weapons as they enter a court-house, but not a school. Judges will protect themselves, but not kids. I believed I mentioned this before.

Frankly, however, I don't know why polticially and socially abusive behaviour of a sexual manner, which includes sexual harrassment of adults as well as children, is any less protected than abusive behaviour of a religious manner. I'd imagine that its the abusiveness of the situation that matters, not the content. Sexually abusive language is permitted in a comedy club etc, not while following a woman down the street hollering at her.

Likewise, protest and jeers of a homophobic nature are permitted, but I don't think they should be following a greiving family during a funeral.

And I said catcall, not proposition. I doubt a court would permit NAMBLA to display pornographic images outside a school, even without direct propositions or with the justification of "challenging the mores of a repressed society through art, blah, blah, blah...." The fact is that it disrupts the rights of individuals to go about their lives in a reasonable and free manner.

Most people without heads up their rears would agree that the ability to have a private funeral free from harrassment at the graveside is a reasonable and normal part of the cycle of life, and as such constitutes a freedom necessary for human dignity, just like free speech. However, because Canada and the United States both now have created a laundry list which says "These rights and no others" we have essentially shut ourselves off from reason and compassion as fundamental building blocks of justice in favour of a superstitious cult of a constitution, and have reduced law to the level of a rulebook and justice to a game.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:59 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Most people without heads up their rears would agree that the ability to have a private funeral free from harrassment at the graveside is a reasonable and normal part of the cycle of life, and as such constitutes a freedom necessary for human dignity, just like free speech. However, because Canada and the United States both now have created a laundry list which says "These rights and no others" we have essentially shut ourselves off from reason and compassion as fundamental building blocks of justice in favour of a superstitious cult of a constitution, and have reduced law to the level of a rulebook and justice to a game.
You are arguing for understood reason instead of written reason; it is not clear to me that one is better than the other. Obviously written reason has to be understood- "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" is interpreted as "Congress can only restrict speech on the grounds of safety and slander" instead of "Congress can not make laws restricting speech." Similarly, things like Miranda rights were created through common law rather than the Constitution.

It is far easier to understand a code, though, than to understand the collected reason and compassion of one's legal elders; that certain rights are written for all to see seems better than a pure common law system, where one has to be familiar with the body of law to know what the result will be. Before the Somerset case, was it clear that slavery would be outlawed in England? Would the decision have been the same if someone other than Lord Mansfield had presided over the case?

An Englishman has rights, and knows it- but an American has a list. That's worth something- particularly when a "reasonable and normal part of the cycle of life" conflicts with those rights.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Arancaytar » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:39 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:Is it bad a part of me still wants Fred Phelps to die in a suicide bombing so I can show up at his funeral saying "Thank God for IEDs!"?


Yes, it's bad, but I'd join you.

Berge wrote:When Bill O'Reilly thinks you're too far to the right, just how far from the pack have you strayed?


You think that's bad? Watch this.

Image
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:01 am UTC

So, these guys are going to be near my house tomorrow; any brilliant ideas for signs to hold up making fun of them? So far the best I have is writing god hates assholes more and standing next to them.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:14 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:So, these guys are going to be near my house tomorrow; any brilliant ideas for signs to hold up making fun of them? So far the best I have is writing god hates assholes more and standing next to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip6Oz83eptw

I didn't watch it, I just searched for certain key words, like WBC and...see for yourself.

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby G.v.K » Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:10 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:However, because Canada and the United States both now have created a laundry list which says "These rights and no others" we have essentially shut ourselves off from reason and compassion as fundamental building blocks of justice in favour of a superstitious cult of a constitution, and have reduced law to the level of a rulebook and justice to a game.


Australia doesn't have a bill of rights and there are regular calls to implement one.

personally, i don't see either option as being inherently better or worse. the laws will still need to be interpreted and those interpretations will often be wrong. what's required is a system that corrects itself over time and allows for flexibility. this case may still go to the Supreme Court, so there might be hope for people who think the current ruling is unjust.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Kayangelus » Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:48 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Most people without heads up their rears would agree that the ability to have a private funeral free from harrassment at the graveside is a reasonable and normal part of the cycle of life, and as such constitutes a freedom necessary for human dignity, just like free speech. However, because Canada and the United States both now have created a laundry list which says "These rights and no others" we have essentially shut ourselves off from reason and compassion as fundamental building blocks of justice in favour of a superstitious cult of a constitution, and have reduced law to the level of a rulebook and justice to a game.


Are you pulling this out of your non-legalistic ass, or is there actually some data on this?

Because, personally, I would value the right to free speech/protest above the right to grieve in peace. I simply view freedom to express opinions as more fundamental and important. I also view said unalieable right to be the "freedom to express your opinions so long as they lead to no physical harm", not "the freedom to express your opinions so long as they lead to no physical harm, and don't upset anyone". People will get upset at opinions. Sometimes they will be horribly upset at and feel harassed by opinions. That does not make those opinions any less valid, nor should it in anyway impact my right to state those opinions.

that being said, I don't believe the rights of a person in a country should be based on whatever the judge thought was okay when he was hearing your case. Because things like compassion and reason differ from person to person. I have a self evident right to be informed about whether I'm allowed to do an action or not, before I perform the action.

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby scikidus » Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:46 pm UTC

I have a few questions. Aren't you allowed to restrict free speech in a non-public place (like swearing loudly in school) and are graveyards ever considered private places, especially if they're privately owned? Are there privately owned graveyards? And can you put foul language on protest signs?
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:21 am UTC

scikidus wrote:Aren't you allowed to restrict free speech in a non-public place (like swearing loudly in school)

A school may not be public property, but public school staff are still agents of the State governments and therefore bound by the First Amendment. The ability to ban, e.g., swearing, has more to do with the school's compelling interest in keeping the classroom orderly than with any special rights it gets for being an enclosed area.

scikidus wrote:are graveyards ever considered private places, especially if they're privately owned?

If they're privately owned, of course; civil liberties only regard government action, so nobody is required to allow you to speak on their own property. You see this come up from time to time here when trolls cry "free speech!" in response to moderation.

I don't know what a "private place" would mean in the context of public property, but I assume that, as with schools, the government has the right to restrict speech that disrupts public facilities (you can't blast music at the Smithsonian or a Supreme Court hearing).

scikidus wrote:Are there privately owned graveyards?

Yes, plenty.

scikidus wrote:And can you put foul language on protest signs?

Not only that, but you can wear a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" inside a courthouse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby MrGee » Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:If our society truly has become sufficiently enlightened as to move past an issue, let it die a natural death; forcing it only invites trouble.


People kept telling Martin Luther King Jr. that. If only he had listened, the idiot might not have gotten himself shot.

User avatar
videogamesizzle
Posts: 358
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:32 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL
Contact:

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby videogamesizzle » Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:00 pm UTC

Aikanaro wrote:Is it bad a part of me still wants Fred Phelps to die in a suicide bombing so I can show up at his funeral saying "Thank God for IEDs!"?
Probably, but I'll still be right there next to you at the protest.

Whether the guy deserved to pay or not, this really gives me a a ton of respect for O'Reilly. I mean, I'm not going to sit around and watch the O'Reilly Factor every night, but I at least don't dislike him as much.

And when the KKK disowns you, you're doing something wrong.
Look at me still talking when there's SCIENCE to do!
Silvyr wrote:I fucking love cocaine. I wish I could buy it somewhere...

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Decker » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:05 am UTC

videogamesizzle wrote:And when the KKK disowns you, you're doing something wrong.

I'm really trying very hard not to sig this out of context.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:43 am UTC

MrGee wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:If our society truly has become sufficiently enlightened as to move past an issue, let it die a natural death; forcing it only invites trouble.

People kept telling Martin Luther King Jr. that. If only he had listened, the idiot might not have gotten himself shot.

Yes, because obviously Martin Luther King was a stalwart bureaucrat cracking down on the kooky anti-civil righters who were so far in the minority and popular opinion so far against their aberrant perspectives on human rights that MLK held no qualms about banishing their ilk away from street corners and any avenue of public expression by any means necessary.... oh, wait a minute....

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Le1bn1z » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
Le1bn1z wrote:Most people without heads up their rears would agree that the ability to have a private funeral free from harrassment at the graveside is a reasonable and normal part of the cycle of life, and as such constitutes a freedom necessary for human dignity, just like free speech. However, because Canada and the United States both now have created a laundry list which says "These rights and no others" we have essentially shut ourselves off from reason and compassion as fundamental building blocks of justice in favour of a superstitious cult of a constitution, and have reduced law to the level of a rulebook and justice to a game.


Are you pulling this out of your non-legalistic ass, or is there actually some data on this?

Because, personally, I would value the right to free speech/protest above the right to grieve in peace. I simply view freedom to express opinions as more fundamental and important. I also view said unalieable right to be the "freedom to express your opinions so long as they lead to no physical harm", not "the freedom to express your opinions so long as they lead to no physical harm, and don't upset anyone". People will get upset at opinions. Sometimes they will be horribly upset at and feel harassed by opinions. That does not make those opinions any less valid, nor should it in anyway impact my right to state those opinions.

that being said, I don't believe the rights of a person in a country should be based on whatever the judge thought was okay when he was hearing your case. Because things like compassion and reason differ from person to person. I have a self evident right to be informed about whether I'm allowed to do an action or not, before I perform the action.


Yes. Again. There is data. I have already laid out the history, above. Countries with constitutional codes do not have a better record on human rights or demcratic development than those without.

Recall, slavery was rulled illeagal in England (1772) and Scotland (1774) by means of the Common Law, by judges.

Other accomplishments of countries without a code that says "these rights and not others" include first womens' sufferage (New Zealand) the outright abolition of slavery everywhere (Brit Empire, 1830s) and, in comparable time to coded countries, universal sufferage, civil right equality for minorities (including end of exclusionary contracts) and, oh yeah, freedom of speech and of press, which is actually less restricted in the U.K. than in the U.S.A. for a whole host of things.

However, in equity, these rights are tempered by basic reason and human decency. At least this much was preserved in Article 1 of the Canadian Charter.

Shockingly, its easy to imagine a way to preserve freedom of speech AND the right to grieve privately in peace for one day. You tell the protesters to protest elsewhere. Just like the same American courts tell protesters when its the safety of a Senator or Judge or the dignity of the President at a G-20 meeting at stake.

The blatant hypocracy of our judges (in both countries) in the protections they assert for themselves but not for others shows the impotence of such codes to provide meaningfully equal protections to all citizens.

Given that there are no examples of countries with constitutionally coded rights being able to exceed similar naitons without them in terms of real human rights, and that, often, non-coded countries lead the way on the issues that matter most (abolition of slavery, womens' sufferage, gay rights, abolition of the death penalty etc.) A code of rights did not help America achieve any of these things.

That is because a code says "These are the rights on which our nation is founded.....these, all of these, and no others" The Common Law constitution, rather, dictates "these are the principles upon which our nation is founded. All rights derive therefrom."

So, there's the data. 300 years worth. I imagine I'll have to rewrite all this yet again when someone else repeats your comment in a couple of days.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby jakovasaur » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:44 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:That is because a code says "These are the rights on which our nation is founded.....these, all of these, and no others" The Common Law constitution, rather, dictates "these are the principles upon which our nation is founded. All rights derive therefrom."


The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It has been argued that people have certain rights, even though they are not explicitly contained in the Constitution, because they exist within the "penumbra" of those rights that are enumerated in the Constitution. For example, in Griswold v. Connecticut, several judges ruled that the right to privacy exists, even though it's not explicitly stated in the constitution. It's a pretty interesting argument, but one could certainly make the case that the Constitution is not simply the enumeration of certain rights at the exclusion of others.

As Justice Harlan III wrote,
"the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints."

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby Le1bn1z » Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:57 pm UTC

Good, and you're right, there is room for rights beyond the viel of the constitutional code. But why, then, are the coded rights given such a precedence when weighted next to non-coded rights?

We have the right to privacy, supposedly, but not the right to grieve in private? The absolutism with which the coded laws are applied renders many of the unenumerated rights "second class" even when, in consideration of human freedom, dignity and liberty, they ought not to be.

Let's put it this way. Let's assume there was no Rights code, and the freedom of speech was a principle of precedent, statute and common law.

Arriving at this situation, would you still think that the best remedy to the conflict between the greiving parents and the abusive "church" is to enshrine the right to harrass people at funerals?

Or could a discerning society reasonably find an alternative, such as allowing for public demonstrations on the point, but allowing exlusions to give grieving families a few hours for private mourning? I honestly believe that we could.

The genuine liberty, dignity and justice of free speech is not endangered by permitting intervals and spaces for private grief without harassment for families who cannot afford vast and well-protected estates to keep paparazzi, KKK or WBO types at bay. The sacrifice of an agrieved family's peace for the sake of proving an abstract point not so consistently maintained elsewhere seems a poor application of equitable weighing of rights.

It only makes sense in a society that has made a totem of one right and not of the other.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Bill O'Reilly pays marine father's legal costs

Postby MrGee » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:36 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
MrGee wrote:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:If our society truly has become sufficiently enlightened as to move past an issue, let it die a natural death; forcing it only invites trouble.

People kept telling Martin Luther King Jr. that. If only he had listened, the idiot might not have gotten himself shot.

Yes, because obviously Martin Luther King was a stalwart bureaucrat cracking down on the kooky anti-civil righters who were so far in the minority and popular opinion so far against their aberrant perspectives on human rights that MLK held no qualms about banishing their ilk away from street corners and any avenue of public expression by any means necessary.... oh, wait a minute....


Rereading your previous post in context, I think we actually agree on the inappropriateness of suppressing ideas :oops:

But I also agree with le1bn1z that a constitution is not as big a deterrent of oppression as everyone thinks. It does play a small role in the sense that the US bill of rights is known to almost everyone, and anyone who tries to take away the freedom of the press has to explain away the first amendment. No government can say "well you never really had freedom of the press anyway."

In the end I think only education and prosperity can bring lasting justice.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KittenKaboodle and 22 guests