The assault on free speech has begun [Archive] - SEC Sports Forum | SEC Basketball | SEC Football

PDA

View Full Version : The assault on free speech has begun



Elvis
06-22-2010, 03:38 PM
ruling 1
(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Court-Allows-Ban-on-Some-Support-for-Terror-Groups-4072)



The Court ruled, by a 6-3 vote, that it does not violate the Constitution for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting a foreign organization that has been officially labeled as terrorist, even if the aim is to support such a group's peaceful or humanitarian actions. But the Court added a significant qualifier: such activity may be banned only if it is coordinated with or controlled by the overseas terrorist group.

ruling 2
(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/2320049908.shtml)



Warning: this one is depressing if you believe in the public domain. You may recall that last year, a district court made a very important ruling on what appeared to be a minor part of copyright law. The "Golan" case asked a simple question: once something is officially in the public domain, can Congress pull it out and put it back under copyright? The situation came about because of (yet another) trade agreement that pulled certain foreign works out of the public domain. A district court had initially said that this move did not violate the law, but the appeals court sent it back, saying that the lower court had not analyzed the First Amendment issue, and whether this was a case where the inherent conflict between the First Amendment and copyright law went too far to the side of copyright by violating the "traditional contours of copyright law." Getting a second crack at this, the district court got it right -- and was the first court to point out that massively expanded copyright law can, in fact, violate the First Amendment.

But, of course, it couldn't last.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling and said there's no problem with the First Amendment because copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest."

Herchel
06-22-2010, 03:45 PM
I think the assault began earlier.

Just Some Hog Dude
06-22-2010, 03:46 PM
do not like

DBS
06-22-2010, 03:49 PM
it's all bush's fault!


right?

ugabrad
06-22-2010, 03:53 PM
Since political donations are considered "free speech" and many of you consider Obama to be a terrorist, does this mean that we can block political contributions to Obama's re-election campaign?

Therein lies the problem with this decision - the government can label any organization it wants as a "terrorist organization" and thus block political dissent.

Just Some Hog Dude
06-22-2010, 03:54 PM
it's all bush's fault!


right?

...the supreme court has a conservative majority.

rolling baby
06-22-2010, 04:02 PM
I think the assault began earlier.

AMEN. See Seattle law against forming political opposition (I posted a link way back) and Maryland law against civilians taping routine police action.

ECDawg78
06-22-2010, 04:41 PM
I think the assault began earlier.

A terribly misleading thread title.......your right H......the assault began years ago......

Herchel
06-22-2010, 04:42 PM
AMEN. See Seattle law against forming political opposition (I posted a link way back) and Maryland law against civilians taping routine police action.

Then there is McCain Feingold, Obama's attacks on talk radio, Fox, etc.

Elvis
06-22-2010, 04:44 PM
Herchel, you consider having an opinion about a network a threat to free speech?
:confused:

Herchel
06-22-2010, 04:48 PM
Herchel, you consider having an opinion about a network a threat to free speech?
:confused:

Not if you have one, just the POTUS.

Elvis
06-22-2010, 04:51 PM
Not if you have one, just the POTUS.

ah ok. I'll keep that in mind. Does that apply to any public official as well?

Herchel
06-22-2010, 04:56 PM
ah ok. I'll keep that in mind. Does that apply to any public official as well?

I don't think so. I don't remember any POTUS in my adult life (including those with whom I agreed, and those with whom I disagreed), conducting a frontal assault on specific news organizations. I think I could have misremembered, but I doubt it. I understand that I am biased, so clue me in if I am wrong.

Just Some Hog Dude
06-22-2010, 05:00 PM
That is probably because partisan "news" networks are a new thing.

Herchel
06-22-2010, 05:02 PM
That is probably because partisan "news" networks are a new thing.

The Clinton News Network has been around for quite a long time.

Elvis
06-22-2010, 05:04 PM
I don't think so. I don't remember any POTUS in my adult life (including those with whom I agreed, and those with whom I disagreed), conducting a frontal assault on specific news organizations. I think I could have misremembered, but I doubt it. I understand that I am biased, so clue me in if I am wrong.

May I assume that you will reject the contention that the "media is liberal" meme is almost entirely the same as the distinction you are making regarding Obama/Fox?*



* I assume that because, to you, the first is merely a factual statement while the second is an opinion.

Just Some Hog Dude
06-22-2010, 05:10 PM
The Clinton News Network has been around for quite a long time.

I don't think CNN is partisan. MSNBC tends to have leftward slant these days. That's good though. Fox needs a counter like that.

Herchel
06-22-2010, 05:23 PM
May I assume that you will reject the contention that the "media is liberal" meme is almost entirely the same as the distinction you are making regarding Obama/Fox?*
I don't understand this question/statement.

Elvis
06-22-2010, 05:30 PM
I don't understand this question/statement.

Richard Nixon started the idea that the media is liberally biased and would refuse to answer questions. This pattern has grown and continued to the point that some politicians simply refuse to answer questions from reporters that are not on their "list."

The question being: Are you ok with that?

Cuz
06-22-2010, 05:38 PM
Well Nixon did have a campaign against the Washington Post as President. Fat lot of good that did him with Woodward and Bernstien.

He hated the press and the press hated Nixon. It was a two way street.

One of my favorite Nixon quotes to the press, "Well you are not going to have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore". Well he must have been an experimental subject for the scientist that discovered Viagra cause Dick got back up again.

Cuz
06-22-2010, 05:39 PM
Dang Elvis and his fascination with Gay Porn. :shakefist:

Elvis
06-22-2010, 05:43 PM
Dang Elvis and his fascination with Gay Porn. :shakefist:

a) it's not my fascination. You are going to have to talk to the mod/admin. They seem to enjoy those kind of sigs instead of the ones I typically prefer.

b) So, my follow up question to you is this Cuz: Are Nixon's actions acceptable, but not Obama?

Just Some Hog Dude
06-22-2010, 05:55 PM
Deterp likes them I bet.