Vegas Free-for-All - JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings

JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings - "Stuff Happens"

Boilerman

Oct 6, 2015
11:08pm

Many (okay, most) Liberals believe that the Constitution is a quaint and obsolete document. These folks also believe it's fully acceptable to ignore the portions of the Constitution that they don't agree with.

Boiler disagrees with these views.

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

alanleroyII

Oct 6, 2015
11:26pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Many (okay, most) Liberals believe that the Constitution is a quaint and obsolete document. These folks also believe it's fully acceptable to ignore the portions of the Constitution that they don't agree with.

Like you ignoring the right to free speech when it might offend some people or businesses?

Boilerman

Oct 6, 2015
11:48pm

Block User

Free speech has limits. One can not legally scream "fire" in a movie theater. Courts recently agreed with me that people don't have the "right" to stand in front of one's business day after day and drive away customers. The court agreed with Boiler that employers and employees on Fremont street have the "right" to do business.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Many (okay, most) Liberals believe that the Constitution is a quaint and obsolete document. These folks also believe it's fully acceptable to ignore the portions of the Constitution that they don't agree with.

Like you ignoring the right to free speech when it might offend some people or businesses?

alanleroyII

Oct 7, 2015
12:06am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Free speech has limits. One can not legally scream "fire" in a movie theater. Courts recently agreed with me that people don't have the "right" to stand in front of one's business day after day and drive away customers. The court agreed with Boiler that employers and employees on Fremont street have the "right" to do business.

Free Expression on Fremont Street isn't the same as screaming 'fire' in a movie theater. Perhaps Boiler can provide a link to these recent court cases that have found the 'right' to do business is more important than the right to freedom of speech. I keep looking in my pocket constitution for that "right to do business"

"These folks also believe it's fully acceptable to ignore the portions of the Constitution that they don't agree with." Sounds like Boiler is one of 'These Folks'....at least when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

Boilerman

Oct 7, 2015
12:53am

Block User

Alanleroy agrees that there are limitations to free speech. Authorities are limiting "free speech" of the street performers, and only allowing small spaces, limited times, and specific locations for them to "perform". This program was set up to protect the rights of the business owner and their employees. Can I set up camp on the sidewalk in front of Alanleroy's house and boom with a megaphone day after day, week after week, and month after month. I suspect that Alanleroy would demand to have this "speech" limited.

There have been court hearings and this is what was settled on. Fremont Street will be a better place for patrons, employees, and business owners beginning November 1.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Free speech has limits. One can not legally scream "fire" in a movie theater. Courts recently agreed with me that people don't have the "right" to stand in front of one's business day after day and drive away customers. The court agreed with Boiler that employers and employees on Fremont street have the "right" to do business.

pjstroh

Oct 7, 2015
1:21am

Block User

So in conclusion:

Boilerman believes its ok to interpret limits to the Constitution ...except when he doesn't. The Supreme Court is given a similar role in our society. But who needs them when we have Boilerman.

snidely333

Oct 7, 2015
1:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Alanleroy agrees that there are limitations to free speech. Authorities are limiting "free speech" of the street performers, and only allowing small spaces, limited times, and specific locations for them to "perform". This program was set up to protect the rights of the business owner and their employees. Can I set up camp on the sidewalk in front of Alanleroy's house and boom with a megaphone day after day, week after week, and month after month. I suspect that Alanleroy would demand to have this "speech" limited.

There have been court hearings and this is what was settled on. Fremont Street will be a better place for patrons, employees, and business owners beginning November 1.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Free speech has limits. One can not legally scream "fire" in a movie theater. Courts recently agreed with me that people don't have the "right" to stand in front of one's business day after day and drive away customers. The court agreed with Boiler that employers and employees on Fremont street have the "right" to do business.

Free Expression on Fremont Street isn't the same as screaming 'fire' in a movie theater. Perhaps Boiler can provide a link to these recent court cases that have found the 'right' to do business is more important than the right to freedom of speech. I keep looking in my pocket constitution for that "right to do business"

"These folks also believe it's fully acceptable to ignore the portions of the Constitution that they don't agree with." Sounds like Boiler is one of 'These Folks'....at least when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

The program is a compromise set up to protect the rights of the street freaks.

The city spent more than a decade in court defending earlier, bolder attempts to bounce street performers and panhandlers off Fremont Street, eventually losing a First Amendment challenge filed on the buskers' behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrice ruled Fremont — which was built with public dollars but is maintained by privately held Fremont Street Experience, LLC — is a public forum subject to free speech protections. City Council member and ordinance backer Bob Coffin said last he checked, the ACLU was happy with the city's newly proposed rules.

CowboyKell

Oct 7, 2015
2:29am

Block User

As a history buff and constitutional "intentionalist" (this is a titled given to me by Justice Ginsberg last intern alumni picnic) I will say that the first amendment was written to guarantee a citizens unfettered ability to criticize the GOVERNMENT without reprisal. Not busking. Not panhandling. Not pornography. etc. etc.

alanleroyII

Oct 7, 2015
2:39am

Block User

Quote

1. There have been no 'court hearings' on this. You said a court decided it. Wrong again.
2. You have constantly said these people should be banned from Fremont Street....and it was not against their right to free speech to ban them.
3. You have been consistently wrong about this and it makes your statement about 'Liberals' only supporting parts of the constitution they agree with quite hypocritical.
4. I have never said there were no limits to free speech. I have said free speech in the public square is a right that should be supported by all Americans...whether they agree with what's being expressed or not. You're the one who wants to further limit free speech...You must not care much about our blessed constitution.

pjstroh

Oct 7, 2015
3:38am

Block User

«‹8 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now