Up tp 5 years in prison and a $10K fine over 'satire'? So much for the 1st Amendment.

The Comments Section is interesting.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22362

The long arm of the Law, Not to worry though the ACLU has there back. ???

Separated at birth?

-Dr Watt

French Taunting - Monty Python and the Holy Grail

-Dr Watt

Quote from: MAC Man on August 06, 2011, 08:23:41 AM
Up tp 5 years in prison and a $10K fine over 'satire'? So much for the 1st Amendment.

The Comments Section is interesting.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22362

So much hot air, unfortunately. The First Amendment rights actually apply to the city of Renton as much as they do to the cartoonist. The Bill of Rights was written as a limit on the FEDERAL government only, and most of the amendments state clearly that any/all rights not conferred directly to the federal government are reserved to the states and/or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment very carefully.

That said, the Renton officials who brought the complaint are insufferable assholes and should be run out of town on a splintery rail, liberally coated with tar and feathers. Uh, gee, did I leave anything out?  :P :P :P

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 07, 2011, 10:18:01 AM
So much hot air, unfortunately. The First Amendment rights actually apply to the city of Renton as much as they do to the cartoonist. The Bill of Rights was written as a limit on the FEDERAL government only, and most of the amendments state clearly that any/all rights not conferred directly to the federal government are reserved to the states and/or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment very carefully.

That said, the Renton officials who brought the complaint are insufferable assholes and should be run out of town on a splintery rail, liberally coated with tar and feathers. Uh, gee, did I leave anything out?  :P :P :P

Strapped to, or impaled upon? ;D

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 07, 2011, 10:18:01 AM
So much hot air, unfortunately. The First Amendment rights actually apply to the city of Renton as much as they do to the cartoonist. The Bill of Rights was written as a limit on the FEDERAL government only, and most of the amendments state clearly that any/all rights not conferred directly to the federal government are reserved to the states and/or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment very carefully.

That said, the Renton officials who brought the complaint are insufferable assholes and should be run out of town on a splintery rail, liberally coated with tar and feathers. Uh, gee, did I leave anything out?  :P :P :P

Okay, then how about Section V of the Constitution of the State of Washington?

SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on August 07, 2011, 03:10:30 PM
Okay, then how about Section V of the Constitution of the State of Washington?

SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

-Dr Watt

Ah, the good doctor points out the relevant law! Too often folks squeal about their "constitutional rights" to do this or that, and those rights exist, but they're talking about the U.S. Constitution when they really need to look to their state's constitution.

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 07, 2011, 03:15:39 PM
Ah, the good doctor points out the relevant law! Too often folks squeal about their "constitutional rights" to do this or that, and those rights exist, but they're talking about the U.S. Constitution when they really need to look to their state's constitution.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't all States ratify in agreement of the Bill of Rights?
Thereby accepting the foundation of said rights, only to expand upon them but not diminish.

Quote from: Solar on August 07, 2011, 03:36:40 PM
If I'm not mistaken, didn't all States ratify in agreement of the Bill of Rights?
Thereby accepting the foundation of said rights, only to expand upon them but not diminish.

The states ratified the Bill of Rights as a collection of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments -- sprang from various states' concerns that a central government would become too powerful. But there was no compunction on any state to expand or preserve any right.

Each state has a unique constitution, which varies in many respects with the U.S. Constitution. The federal plan was never meant to be more than a way of banding the states together with a minimal number of rules and regulations so that things like the need for a common defense against foreign invaders could be met. State constitutions have always been completely independent of the U.S. Constitution, and in some cases actually pre-date the federal version.

It's easy to believe that the states would automatically accept the foundation of the rights expressed in the U.S. Constitution, and wish to expand them. But the historical fact is that it happened almost exactly in reverse. The U.S. Constitution was a product of the contributions of many framers from many states with many different state constitutions -- all of which were in place BEFORE the U.S. Constitution was ever written. It was the FEDERAL constitution that accepted the premises of many STATE constitutions as basic building blocks, NOT the other way around.

Quote from: Solar on August 07, 2011, 03:36:40 PM
If I'm not mistaken, didn't all States ratify in agreement of the Bill of Rights?
Thereby accepting the foundation of said rights, only to expand upon them but not diminish.

You have to remember (as so many have forgotten) what the Constitution's purpose is. It's purpose is simple - tell the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT what it can, and cannot do.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those first five words are the key! ;)

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 07, 2011, 03:55:39 PM
The states ratified the Bill of Rights as a collection of amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments -- sprang from various states' concerns that a central government would become too powerful. But there was no compunction on any state to expand or preserve any right.

Each state has a unique constitution, which varies in many respects with the U.S. Constitution. The federal plan was never meant to be more than a way of banding the states together with a minimal number of rules and regulations so that things like the need for a common defense against foreign invaders could be met. State constitutions have always been completely independent of the U.S. Constitution, and in some cases actually pre-date the federal version.

It's easy to believe that the states would automatically accept the foundation of the rights expressed in the U.S. Constitution, and wish to expand them. But the historical fact is that it happened almost exactly in reverse. The U.S. Constitution was a product of the contributions of many framers from many states with many different state constitutions -- all of which were in place BEFORE the U.S. Constitution was ever written. It was the FEDERAL constitution that accepted the premises of many STATE constitutions as basic building blocks, NOT the other way around.

Yes T, but were not talking about the original 13 Colonies, were talking about the States after the fact, those that came into being much later.

All these States accepted the Bill of rights as a basic premise, some even expanding upon it, but the fact remains, everyone in this Country has a basic Right to free speech, all based upon the 1st.

Quote from: Solar on August 08, 2011, 07:02:07 AM
Yes T, but were not talking about the original 13 Colonies, were talking about the States after the fact, those that came into being much later.

All these States accepted the Bill of rights as a basic premise, some even expanding upon it, but the fact remains, everyone in this Country has a basic Right to free speech, all based upon the 1st.

Yep, the right to free speech has been incorporated to the People by Supreme Court decisions; the States have no say in the matter.

Quote from: Shanghai Dan on August 08, 2011, 08:48:04 AM
Yep, the right to free speech has been incorporated to the People by Supreme Court decisions; the States have no say in the matter.

I would say if not a lot of news papers would be shut down when talking about law enforcement or  government in a bad way.  Fox would go first.   

Quote from: MAC Man on August 06, 2011, 08:23:41 AM
Up tp 5 years in prison and a $10K fine over 'satire'? So much for the 1st Amendment.

The Comments Section is interesting.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22362

Outrageous.