|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 14, 2011 21:50:31 GMT -5
No. Currently in practice we do not have less rights or else WBC would not be allowed to continue, the Neo-nazis and Aryan Nations would all be locked up, every Arab and/or Muslim would be in camps just like the Japanese were in WW2. You cannot throw up something from the past as proof that we do not have less rights in practice. Why would Arabs or muslims be locked up? You're not at war with any Arab country nor are you engaged in Holy War. We aren't technically at war, but we are "occupying" them. We still act as if in war, which is why we have places like Gitmo and have things like No Fly lists.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 21:56:03 GMT -5
Which Arab country are you occupying? Afghanistan not arab. I kind of thought that Iraq wasn't arab either. Hence why the Arabs. Is the US occupying and at war with Saudi Arabia? Lots of Arabs from there in the US. Why would they be locked up?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 14, 2011 22:11:21 GMT -5
But you have states where Athiests can't hold office. C'mon. I think this is where we have a bit of confusion, those laws are invalid and courts recognize they are invalid. A lot of states still have anti-sodomy laws and a lack of minimum wage laws, but it doesn't matter as the federal laws say otherwise and federal laws trump state laws. There isn't much of any push to change them as those laws mean absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 22:27:46 GMT -5
But you have states where Athiests can't hold office. C'mon. I think this is where we have a bit of confusion, those laws are invalid and courts recognize they are invalid. A lot of states still have anti-sodomy laws and a lack of minimum wage laws, but it doesn't matter as the federal laws say otherwise and federal laws trump state laws. There isn't much of any push to change them as those laws mean absolutely nothing. So what you're saying is that legal documents which ostensibly infringe on your rights but aren't enforced don't have an impact on your rights?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 14, 2011 22:36:38 GMT -5
I think this is where we have a bit of confusion, those laws are invalid and courts recognize they are invalid. A lot of states still have anti-sodomy laws and a lack of minimum wage laws, but it doesn't matter as the federal laws say otherwise and federal laws trump state laws. There isn't much of any push to change them as those laws mean absolutely nothing. So what you're saying is that legal documents which ostensibly infringe on your rights but aren't enforced don't have an impact on your rights? They are nullified by more important ones. It's not that they aren't enforced, other documents render them invalid.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 14, 2011 22:49:30 GMT -5
You're not seeing a right to privacy in the third and fourth Amendments? The ones that make sure people can't just break into your home and search it or force unwanted people to stay in your home? Goddammit, LHM... The GOVERNMENT can't just break into your home and search your stuff. Nothing about private citizens. Fuck sake back atcha. Except it's not just the government. Tort law--yes this is used by the Supreme Court so try to keep up--says that publicizing private facts that are not of public interest is a breach of one's right to privacy. D'oh
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 14, 2011 22:51:23 GMT -5
And this is where you stop getting my point. There is a legal reason compelling him to do so - the information is personal and, if revealed, could cause embarrassment. Something that is spelled out in the tort of false light. Sooo... where and who is deciding what is and isn't publicly sharable information? How is "she had an abortion!" different to, say, "he posted a picture of his penis on the internet!" Because the person who posted the penis pic on the Internet would technically have been the one revealing all that information to the public.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 22:53:53 GMT -5
I still think reference to legal documents as indicative of a greater level of rights is misconceived. I'm sure people in North Korea have lots of rights in legal documents.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 14, 2011 23:17:28 GMT -5
I still think reference to legal documents as indicative of a greater level of rights is misconceived. I'm sure people in North Korea have lots of rights in legal documents. Red herring. We're not discussing North Korea, are we?
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 23:25:24 GMT -5
Not a red herring. We were discussing whether this particular bilboard was against a US Law. I think thanks to what Smurfette stated it is pretty clear that it is at the very least actionable in Tort for the Ex to sue this guy.
During the course of the main discussion it was stated that the US had heaps more rights than Australia. What was pointed to as being the source or authority for that statement was the number of rights preserved in the US Constitution as compared with the Australian. So the fact that a country can effectively and practically have limited rights yet have a document which says that the citizens of that country are like super free is relevant.
The fact that the US legal documents have not in the past effectively protected the rights of US Citizens whereas Australian Courts have in exactly similar circumstances is relevant. The fact that there are many US legal documents that limit rights of for instance athiests is kind of relevant.
But what am I talking about? Of course the US is the greatest and the best and absolutely super. I apologise for not immediately recognising your superiority and daring to express a view that while not actually critical of the US wasn't sufficiently enthusiastic.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 14, 2011 23:41:55 GMT -5
You know, I could sit here and explain to you that bringing up North Korea was a red herring attempt to divert the topic away from the rights and legalities of the United States (which is what this concerns) but I have more interesting things to do. There's an episode of Burn Notice and a re run of Deep Space Nine that I find far more entertaining than debating the US legal system with you.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 14, 2011 23:45:13 GMT -5
Which Arab country are you occupying? Afghanistan not arab. I kind of thought that Iraq wasn't arab either. Hence why the Arabs. Is the US occupying and at war with Saudi Arabia? Lots of Arabs from there in the US. Why would they be locked up? You're ignoring the and/or Muslim part. Remember? And Iraq has an Arabic majority therefore I consider it in my Arab statistic. It is considered an Arabic country by a good portion of people as well. I also never stated that we had to be at war with an Arabic country when I mentioned putting Arabs and/or Muslims in camps. You jumped to that conclusion. It's so cute that you're trying to argue US law with us and that you accuse us of being rabid patriots.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 14, 2011 23:54:16 GMT -5
Which Arab country are you occupying? Afghanistan not arab. I kind of thought that Iraq wasn't arab either. Hence why the Arabs. Is the US occupying and at war with Saudi Arabia? Lots of Arabs from there in the US. Why would they be locked up? You're ignoring the and/or Muslim part. Remember? And Iraq has an Arabic majority therefore I consider it in my Arab statistic. It is considered an Arabic country by a good portion of people as well. I also never stated that we had to be at war with an Arabic country when I mentioned putting Arabs and/or Muslims in camps. You jumped to that conclusion. It's so cute that you're trying to argue US law with us and that you accuse us of being rabid patriots. Why then would muslims, arab or otherwise be interned. As I said I wasn't aware the US was involved in a holy war. I mentioned a War because you made reference to Japanese internment camps in the US. Which was when you were involved in a war with the nation of Japan. So why if it were not for the protections afforded by the constitution would arabs and/or muslims be interned? It was your proposition I'm kind of interested in what the rationale is behind it if it weren't for the assertion that the US was in a war with arabs/ and or muslims. Also I am generally cute. What's funny is that I'm fairly sure I know just as much about US law as pretty much everyone here barring Erictheblue. Funnily enough there is quite a bit of cross-over between the laws of federations established by constitutions which have a common law background. You know Australia, Canada, India the US. Also its not like we never hear anything about the US or don't get the Restatement of the Law.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 15, 2011 0:16:51 GMT -5
1) I never said war was a requirement. 2) Do you really think that a criminal justice student does not have a working knowledge of the Constitution and all of the rights promised in it? Because really, did you miss out on when erictheblue and I double-teamed with our law knowledge? Or are you that thick? 3) Hearing about the US is different from having to know your enumerated rights and where to find them in the Constitution and the BoR. 4) AGAIN being at war was never mentioned as being a requirement to intern Arabs/Muslims. If I had wanted to say that I would have. I merely mentioned a group in history that was interned since you seem fond of bringing up things from the past in your arguments. We are at war with terrorists. Which terrorists? those in the MUSLIM world. Ergo my 'rationale'. 5) You ignored my other points about neo-nazis and everyone else being jailed because the right to freedom of speech is not a right put into practice which is what you've been yammering on about-- our rights enumerated in the Constitution not being upheld. 6) You may think you know but you don't.
This is ridic.
The point is the man's rights were not and will not be violated as he did not have a fucking right in the first place to broadcast information about his ex-girlfriend.
I really hope the courts rule in the woman's favor and he gets hit with harassment charges.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Jun 15, 2011 0:32:51 GMT -5
Shane,
I totally agree with your last two sentences and I have never expressed any disagreement with them.
As for the rest. The point I contended with was that the US has more rights, and is more free than, Australia. I disagree merely because many of our rights aren't written into our constitution does not mean we have less rights.
1) No but it was stated in the context of Japanese interments - when the US was at war with Japan. Yeah for context. 2)I missed the double teaming but it does sound hot. But the criminal justice student thing is kind of an appeal to authority and is one rung above, Neutral Guy's my Dad is a lawyer schtick. 3) Yes hearing about it is. But then again it's a bit presumptious to assume that merely because we're antepodean we are bereft of knowledge and unfamiliar with your country, its history or its legal system. Given, in particular, as I said the rather large similarities in origin of the legal systems. 4) The past seemed relevant to a discussion about how effective your rights have been protected. If a war isn't necessary then why bring up the war on terror? So are you saying that all terrorists are muslims or are all muslims terrorists. Do only muslim terrorists count in the war on terror? Given that its a soundbite rather than a declaration - as otherwise people within Guantanamo bay would need to be accorded rights under the Geneva convention, it seems a stretch. But for all the Muslim Americans I am glad that the constitution is there to protect them. 5) I ignored this because its irrelevent to the proposition that the US has more rights than Australia. 6) If you have to ask, you'll never know
|
|