Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

[EarlyMon]

ROTF - well - alrighty then.

 

[Crude]

So - how is a KKK snowman in an area known for racial violence any different than that hypothetical XXX billboard where a public nuisance was concerned?

Your probably right, but under that logic we've already lost our first. If circumstances can justify the limiting of free speech then we are just waiting to loose it completely.

What you are implying is that "we have a republic. As long as we can keep it". I wonder if the unrest in America is the economy or the republic dying?


As for your question YES. This thread is done.

 

[Bob Maxey]

So - has the topic of TSA scanners run its course, then?

Hey, if you will wait a few weeks, we can revive it. Christmas is drawing near as is the increased travel.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

That's fine and dandy, but he cowtowed to authority and removed the KKK hood and then the arm holding the noose.

He could have left it as was, accepted the arrest and fought it in court. He may well have ultimately won.

Or he may have lost resoundingly.

Either way - he lacked the courage of his convictions. He didn't fight for the rights you say he has in this case.

Did he spit on the graves of soldiers by throwing his rights away, showing cowardice to the police as he did?

Or, being confronted that he'd created a public nuisance, did he admit that he was shouting fire in an open theater?

What do you think?

FWIW, as context is often considered when dealing with rights, I noticed from the article that this all took place at: "The city of Hayden, in northern Idaho, is not far from the former headquarters of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations group."

I note with interest that had he erected this snowman - or a Nativity Scene - on the public median or public easeway to his property (whichever might apply) then he might have been compelled to remove it as a violation of church and state in the case of a Nativity Scene - or under any local provisions in the case of the silly snowman.

That's the difference a few yards can make in a physically open space (the property line is real - it is physically invisible however).

Do you believe public nuisance laws are invalid?

What if instead of a silly snowman he instead erected ear-splittingly loud audio system on the lawn and played rantings of his KKK beliefs all night long?

Does the 1st Amendment more directly protect that scenario than the snowman? It literally says speech, not snowmen as examples of expression.

Where would you draw the line?

Was his 1st Amendment right violated or was it an interpretation of that right that was violated?

And what about neighborhood covenants? Most of those dictate what you can and can't do just to decorate your house - and they tend to stand up in court from what I've read.

How is it that an enclave of neighbors can override the 1st Amendment - doesn't it appear that way to you?

Unfortunately, we no longer seem to recognize what is reasonable and sensible and what is simply idiotic and not to be tolerated. Freedom of expression comes with a price tag and we simply cannot allow you (or me) to say and do whatever the bloody hell we want to do and claim it is constitutionally (or should be) protected.

All speech should be protected. Yup, it should. That said, should a speech that calls for the murder of the president; a call to pick up guns and kill every black child we see, perhaps a demand that we shoot homos on site

 

[EarlyMon]

It might be, but what is wrong with the idea that some things are simply wrong and should not be tolerated? I think the country will survive the loss of some idiotic KKK member

 

[hakr100]

I favor hanging klan snowmen in effigy.

 

[IOWA]

I agree with you 100%.

Then again - there was Skokie. Seems we can survive the protection of idiotic ideas pretty well, too.



I think that whenever people falsely equate their ideas of entitlements with rights, then there can be no social contract - because a collective of people driven by a sense of entitlement is not a society, it's a mob.

So, what did I learn today, Bob?

Well - first, that the new effigy of choice for the Klan doesn't involve fire, it involves snow. Actually, I think that's a big step forward for the Klan.

Second, that there is a place in America that's so polite that when someone has an offensive winter decoration, they do not take matters into their own hands. I think on the surface, that's a step forward.

What they do instead is to call the police - for a snowman. A freaking snowman. And the media - they called the media.

And that's when the snowman left his yard, as I said earlier.

And it came over here and survived on this forum to fight another day.

Next time, I say send the TSA after it.

You can conceal a lot of things inside a snowman.

Like fear.

Yeah what's with my generation? My generation was the start of this entitlement crap. And the one behind mine? Forget about it. They feel the world owes them something. They get upset when mommy doesn't get them the newest hot iPod. WTF? Seriously? I remember when I got a hand me down Atari system I was stoked.

 

[hakr100]

Yeah what's with my generation? My generation was the start of this entitlement crap. And the one behind mine? Forget about it. They feel the world owes them something. They get upset when mommy doesn't get them the newest hot iPod. WTF? Seriously? I remember when I got a hand me down Atari system I was stoked.

Every generation says that about the generations that follow.

One of my pet gripes is the functional and cultural illiteracy of today's high school students and high school graduates. I don't recall a time when so many knew so little about so much. It is obvious that very few high school students do any serious reading or writing these days. What reading they do do probably consists of perusing paragraphs on internet web sites. Most, I would guess, have never read David Copperfield or Tale of Two Cities or any novels by Jules Verne or Faulkner or Hemingway.

It's no wonder so many Americans are so susceptible to political demagogues.

 

[IOWA]

Every generation says that about the generations that follow.

One of my pet gripes is the functional and cultural illiteracy of today's high school students and high school graduates. I don't recall a time when so many knew so little about so much. It is obvious that very few high school students do any serious reading or writing these days. What reading they do do probably consists of perusing paragraphs on internet web sites. Most, I would guess, have never read David Copperfield or Tale of Two Cities or any novels by Jules Verne or Faulkner or Hemingway.

It's no wonder so many Americans are so susceptible to political demagogues.

Meh, I never really liked those books. I don't think people should be forced to read them either. But I always loved (and still do, in fact) Tom Clancy novels. The Giver was also a childhood favorite of mine. I don't think students should be forced to read certain novels, but they should be required to do some reading from an "approved list" and report on it.

 

[EarlyMon]

Meh, I never really liked those books. I don't think people should be forced to read them either. But I always loved (and still do, in fact) Tom Clancy novels. The Giver was also a childhood favorite of mine. I don't think students should be forced to read certain novels, but they should be required to do some reading from an "approved list" and report on it.

I'd offer that required reading is quite valuable. One goal of education is enculturation - and that is planted by exposure to archetypes, customs and styles. You need not accept, like or value the specifics of that trio from those various books. In fact, the nature of individuality is such that we'd expect each student to come away with dissimilar values from those readings.

It's the exposure alone that shapes each of us, even with those books you or I disliked. It can even be argued that the dislikes shape critical thought, while the likes nurture the concept that any idea once shared gains foundation and can then evolve; moreso when the teacher encourages discourse or reporting.

Required reading is also a workplace preparation. It's quite possibly the beginning of learning that complaining and negotiating won't get you out of required tasks that you don't see the reason for, and that in the end, it's just easier to do the required work and get it out of the way - it's a survivable discomfort.

A trite response would suggest that letting students choose all of their required reading would be as disastrous as letting them choose to select from addition, multiplication or functions in math. While trite, that in itself might also be food for thought.

I think the required reading list for TSA-related decision makers ought to include the complete history of McCarthyism - not the Cliff's Notes. Short of that, I'd give them this for required reading and then require testing for comprehension - including a 20-page essay graded at the 600 level -

The Secret of Successful Despotism

 

[Bob Maxey]

Meh, I never really liked those books. I don't think people should be forced to read them either. But I always loved (and still do, in fact) Tom Clancy novels. The Giver was also a childhood favorite of mine. I don't think students should be forced to read certain novels, but they should be required to do some reading from an "approved list" and report on it.

Who decides what is on the approved list? And if you have an approved list, does that not suggest that children will indeed be forced to read this or that?

Perhaps those that want to edit Tom Sawyer and eliminate racial epithets or the character Jim can approve the book list? Or perhaps they can read books that rewrite our history to suit a jaded and slanderous view of America. Like a niece

 

[hakr100]

Perhaps we need to go back in time and teach kids the way we/I were/was taught?
Bob Maxey

Gosh, I hope not.

 

[byteware]

My only response to this is in the form of a question; why did you respond by quoting me? If you have done none of what I spoke against, then you have no reason to respond and point out that you have done none of this. In my opinions (and yes this is just an opinion), people will only respond in such a manner if they feel they were called out. I made it clear that I wasn't singling out any one person or post, yet you still make a point to tell me you are not calling anyone an idiot.

Or, maybe it was because I was the only person responding to the other poster on the topic... when you posted this.

That would be a much simpler explanation.

And I never said that the government has the right to take our rights away. I was simply pointing out that the way a lot of the people in this forum are going about discussing this fact is ridiculous in my opinion. I also agree that are rights were fought for and died for. That said, I don't believe that anyone has the right to make another person feel like less of a citizen just because they do not feel this is a threat to their rights, and I feel like there are people in this thread that are doing just that; touting their rights while degrading others. Just because someone doesn't feel this is not a violation of their rights does not automatically mean that they don't have the utmost respect for those that died for their rights. Hell, there are plenty of people that died within the past ten years for reasons I do not agree with. That doesn't mean I don't respect the fact that they died serving our country.

By giving away their own rights, they give away OUR rights as well. Not only that, but they are giving away something that people died for us to have. That DOES mean that they don't have respect for those that died for those rights.

If someone dies to give you something, and you throw it in the trash, that absolutely DOES mean that you don't have respect for those that died for it.

Serving our country? You may not agree with the wars they are fighting in, but if you throw away what THEY are actually fighting for, then you basically tell them... you died for this, and we appreciate it... but no thanks. That doesn't seem particularly respectful to me.

 

[byteware]

Ah, so that's what the TSA is doing, escorting you off the property while you retain your right against search and seizure?

The system is working then?

Nope, even if the TSA was a private organization and the airport was their property, that wouldn't be what they are doing.

They are detaining, fining, and jailing people. So, no... that is absolutely NOT what they are doing.

 

[byteware]

So just to be very clear, you are saying I DO NOT have the right to have you removed from MY PROPERTY for violating those rules I impose?

I thought I was clear, but I will try to make it a little bit clearer.

You have the right to ask me to leave your property.
You have the right to call the police to remove me from your property.

You do NOT have the right to attempt to silence me while I am on your property.

You do NOT have the right to attempt to remove my clothes while I am on your property.

You do NOT have the right to take my firearm while I am on your property.

Doing any of these things will end you up in jail.

My rights, are my rights, even if I am on YOUR property.

As silly as they might be; my examples are certainly that. You are absolutely wrong. I have the right to impose whatever rules I want to impose ON MY PROPERTY.

No argument. You can set whatever rules you want. However, you cannot violate my rights. The only thing you can do is escort me from YOUR property.

Being on your property doesn't remove any of my rights.

I can indeed force you to leave my property. I can indeed restrict you from carrying a gun on my property (I like guns, so I would not have a problem if you wanted to carry one on my property, so you gun lovers on the list, Bob is definitely pro guns and looking for a 12 gauge Browning in good shape.)

If you allow me onto your property, and you physically attempt to force me to leave, you have committed a crime. That's assault. If you tell me to leave, and I do not, then you can call the cops.

If you did not allow me onto your property, and you physically attempt to force me to leave (and I am NOT threatening you in any way), then you have committed a crime. That's assault. If you tell me to leave, and I do not, then you can call the cops.

If I am on your property, and you demand my firearm. I have a choice of whether or not to give it to you. You cannot take my property against my will, firearm or otherwise. If I do not hand over my firearm, you can ask me to leave. If I do not leave, you can call the cops. You cannot legally at any time put your hands on my person without committing a crime, unless I attack you first.

I am not sure why you believe (to use your confused words:

 

[byteware]

Yes, indeed you can keep on yammering. I cannot muzzle you, tie you up, stuff a sock in your mouth, or beat you unconscious with a few bars of bar soap in a sock. To do so could land me in jail for assault. Well, I have great lawyers so perhaps not.

What I can do is ask you to leave, prevent you from entering in the first place, make you leave, have you escorted off my property by the coppers if you do something I do not want you to do.

I can ask you to leave if you carry a weapon, too.

Bob Maxey

So, we're agreed. You cannot infringe on my rights. You can only exercise yours. You cannot stop me from speaking, or carrying a firearm. You can only determine that I will not do those things on YOUR property. That's fine. That's your right. That's why it's private property. At no point do I give up my rights simply because I entered your property though.

 

[byteware]

You clearly do not grasp what a terribly difficult thing amending the Constitution is, do you? It isn

 

[byteware]

Bob is correct, your understanding of Constitutional rights and Property Rights are not accurate.

Let's look at your argument before we decide that.

An owner of private property is free to impose rules of behavior upon you when you come onto the property. If you fail to abide by those rules, he can have you removed.

He can ask you to leave. He cannot at this point have you removed (the police are not an on call bouncer service after all).

You can choose to simply walk off the property at that point. At no point have you given up your rights. Period.

The only thing that has been taken away is, your permission to be on his property. That permission can be conditional. That is not removing my rights at all.

As he said, you can continue to talk away the entire time the police are stuffing you into the squad car, but the trespassing charges and any other charges that result from the incident will not be erased by "your right to free speech".

If I leave willingly when asked, then there is no charges. I've simply moved the location that I am exercising my rights. My rights were never in doubt.

Many people think that the "freedom of speech" clause is fairly literal, meaning "I can say what I want, when I want, wherever I want." While there is a small degree of truth to it, the majority of the protections provided by the 1st amendment have to do with the Government's ability to restrict it. I can forbid you from placing a piece of sculpture on my yard that I deem offensive. The government cannot pass a law that says its illegal for you to make the sculpture in the first place.

You have unintentionally made my point for me here.

None of my rights ever covered putting anything on YOUR property, so by not giving me permission to put it there, I have lost no rights. I still have the ability to put it somewhere else, or even on my own property.

 

[byteware]

Since we're on the topic of rights on your own property, here's something we can all agree on as being an infringement of the 1st amendment

Idaho White Supremacist Builds KKK Snowman

Mind you his actions are in bad taste, but it's on his property so his right to free speech was violated.

I'm pretty sure he's got a case that his freedom of speech was violated. We don't have to like the speech, but it is protected.

 

[byteware]

How about people like this?

VERY EXTREME NSFW!

If you can't take the reality of what the world is really like, don't view.

If you are a liberal, and can't handle the truth, don't watch these videos.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZiKTX8NG-Y


This one is why I carry a gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSTi1ne7gto&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUrj_D13_Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hufiwGlHSVI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKh2RG0NaG0

I'm pretty sure all of those are dumber than that person who probably just played a sick joke.

This actually made me a little sick to my stomach. People like this... bah.

 

[byteware]

We can all argue that erecting a KKK snowman or as you put it, “What he instead erected ear-splittingly loud audio system on the lawn and played ranting of his KKK beliefs all night long” as being constitutionally protected.

Further evidence that you don't understand WHY it's important to protect the rights of everyone.

It is hard to see the harm done by taking away someone's rights, when you are in the majority.

Let's put you in the minority. Let's say that the majority of people believe that talking ill of government taxation and spending is bad for the country. It's something that we should ban...

Would you feel that your right to speak should be protected then?

How is that different from the KKK situation?

And what standard would be used to determine when someone's speech should be banned, and who would apply that standard?

 

[byteware]

Every generation says that about the generations that follow.

One of my pet gripes is the functional and cultural illiteracy of today's high school students and high school graduates. I don't recall a time when so many knew so little about so much. It is obvious that very few high school students do any serious reading or writing these days. What reading they do do probably consists of perusing paragraphs on internet web sites. Most, I would guess, have never read David Copperfield or Tale of Two Cities or any novels by Jules Verne or Faulkner or Hemingway.

It's no wonder so many Americans are so susceptible to political demagogues.

My personal opinion:

This comes from the requirement that schools do everything in their power to help students pass high school.

Make education the responsibility of the student.

We never take the training wheels off in our education system. Then when our kids graduate, it amazes us that they can't ride a bicycle.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The private property argument doesn't really apply here. Airports are paid for by public money for the most part. They are very much public property. Yes, there are private airports here and there built with private funds and to my knowledge, are not subject to these security procedures. I think it's safe to say that most of us do our travelling at the large, municipal airport closest to us and those are generally very much public property.

 

[byteware]

The private property argument doesn't really apply here. Airports are paid for by public money for the most part. They are very much public property. Yes, there are private airports here and there built with private funds and to my knowledge, are not subject to these security procedures. I think it's safe to say that most of us do our travelling at the large, municipal airport closest to us and those are generally very much public property.

I agree, but I think the idea that somehow we check our rights at the door when we enter private property needs to be addressed.

 

[hakr100]

Serving our country? You may not agree with the wars they are fighting in, but if you throw away what THEY are actually fighting for, then you basically tell them... you died for this, and we appreciate it... but no thanks. That doesn't seem particularly respectful to me.

One can respect a soldier's sacrifice and at the same time think the causes of the sacrifice, in this case the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, are not worthy of the sacrifice. There's nothing we are going to accomplish in Afghanistan that is worth the price of Americans coming home in body bags or missing limbs.