|
hope some of those people brought a bagged lunch
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
That line is so long you would think they're trying to vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
A heroic ham
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
We need to be careful, Trump might moon us back and no one wants to see that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Zero_Grade posted:Yeah I was gonna say, you can't post that without the accompanying caption/rant. I wonder who will have the street cred to pen Trump's penultimate obit
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:We need to be careful, Trump might moon us back and no one wants to see that. "HUNDREDS DEAD, THOUSANDS TRAUMATIZED BY TRUMPS MOONING OF PROTESTERS DURING RALLY" would be peak 2017
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Call me crazy, but this seems bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Withnail posted:I wonder who will have the street cred to pen Trump's penultimate obit i can't think of anyone with the right level of ability plus vitriol to live up to the nixon and reagan obits. keith olbermann maybe? ana navarro? ta nehisi coates?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Call me crazy, but this seems bad. Don't budget bills have to start in the house? Whatever the house votes up will have to go back to the Senate to get voted on again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why forbid yourself the feminine anymore? Women aren't identifying with masculinity nearly at all according to those polls. I'm a bad liberal/leftist so I have a very traditional view of masculinity/femininity but I think a lot of trans people in today's culture may feel less and less desirable to identify as a hyper masculine level 1 man as they did in the past. ThisIsWhyTrumpWon fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
tecnocrat posted:Don't budget bills have to start in the house? Whatever the house votes up will have to go back to the Senate to get voted on again. This was some shenanigans that would allow the senate to just vote on whatever the house passes in some way that prevents them needing 60 votes
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
tecnocrat posted:Don't budget bills have to start in the house? Whatever the house votes up will have to go back to the Senate to get voted on again. The Senate can take any bill that origionates in the house and replase the language to make it a budget bill. The House and the Senate still need to pass the same version of the bill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Withnail posted:I wonder who will have the street cred to pen Trump's penultimate obit It should be noted that a lot of famous people already have obits written up, they just need to fill in dates and stuff. Though 2016 probably made Donnie's more colorful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Actually what I'm interested by are the bars they aren't showing, where people's place on the scale is opposite from their identified gender. Subtracting from 100, this includes 8% of men and 6% of women over 65. Or discouraging depending what side you are on. I'm afraid that men in that age group hate their own masculinity because of actions that are not of their own doing and feel forced to identify less masculine then they would normally do this influences of culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Or discouraging depending what side you are on. Post/username combo
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
I really hope Trump sees this and it gives him a rage driven heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
I already regret this. If tediousness or 1A doesn't interest you, please follow this advice. A standard plea not to mistake my attempts at explaining what is contrasted with what ought to be as an endorsement of Spencer, Rowlingesque Governors, or the Fash generally. Also, for the love of everything holy, redact to only the relevant parts if you're quoting this. Nobody needs to scroll past this poo poo repeatedly. tl;dr: Did UF have to allow Spencer's speech? Unambiguously YES. Sources and useful discussions in links throughout. Style mostly cribbed from Popehat lawsplainners, because strawmen are easy. A Prelude: You, supporting the imprisonment of antiwar protesters and socialists posted:The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Me, down with Pink Codes and red roses posted:You absolute moron. You complete numbskull. This standard was used to shut down anyone who advocated any behavior that might disrupt conscription, and hasn't been valid in drat near 50 years, since Brandenburg "Fighting Words" have not come before the Supreme Court in your lifetime. What has is their estranged cousin, [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-538.ZO.html]the Heckler's Veto. The utter repugnance of Nazis MAY limit my culpability if I punch one in the face but the state cannot use my desire to bash the fash to prevent the fash from assembling. And with that out of the way: So, you're curious about Nazis and the First Amendment! gently caress Nazis, gently caress the KKK, and gently caress Professional Edgemeisters who Profit off Bigotry. We'll focus on college settings tonight, with brief digressions into the circumstances surrounding some of the cases that spawned relevant rulings. Also, it'll only be public universities. Because it's more complex with private schools. and IDGAF about you silverspooned little fucks Must universities allow unfettered access and speech? No! Universities are viewed as limited public fora (compared to a park or a city street), and are able to level restrictions on speech/assembly/religion for a variety of reasons-usually "time", "place", and "manner". Notably not permitted are restrictions based primarily on content. They may not grant favorable access to pro-life groups while denying pro-choice ones. With few exceptions, they may not control topics of speeches or discussion. With few exceptions, they may not allow the formation of social clubs while forbidding the formation of political ones. Can't they get around this by.... No. One Weird Trick is frowned upon, and school administrators are not competent enough to pull it off. Mr Interweb posted:Can't universities just bypass this sort of thing by inviting right-wingers to speak, but just not blatant poo poo stirrers like Spencer? If you're looking to disguise your Nazi objections by instead objecting to the violence that seems to surround Spencer, you run afoul of our aforementioned Heckler's Veto. If all that it takes to deny First Amendment rights is that their exercise would provoke a sufficiently strong threat to the public order, those rights would be essentially worthless. That your speech/existence/religion inflames the passions of others does not permit the State to restrict or remove your ability to speak/gather/worship (demonstrated to great effect by the ace trollers at the Satanic Church). Fine, let him speak. But he's on the hook for security fees! Kaal posted:The Heckler's Veto concept only ensures that universities can't simply say, "No you can't speak because we don't want a riot". It still permits reasonable fees to be required. Again, the fundamental takeaway here is that universities need to demonstrate that they are levying valid fees, preferably in the form of some sort of objective standard.  This is false "Protesters and Antifa cannot prevent Richard Spencer from speaking. They can make it cost him $500,000" is a distinction without difference. From Blackmun, starting it all: "Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob." The university can charge a reasonable, nominal fee for security as a part of renting out space to student groups or outside parties such as Spencer. That fee must be unrelated to the content of the speech. Forsyth County, in this landmark case, stopped short of your argument (though they also failed to make an objective standard). Not even attempting to charge for security (though they were allowed to), they charged for the clerk's time in processing and investigating the permit application... coming in at $100 ($900 below the maximum allowed). If it takes longer to investigate an application or requires more security to keep order when speech is controversial, then charges are explicitly based on the content of the speech and it is explicitly disallowed. They may charge Spencer the same fees they charge everyone else. They may not charge him extra because people accurately identify him as a loathsome maggot who is in desperate need of an asskicking. In theory they could charge everyone a $500,000 fee for security, but I imagine that would strike the court as unreasonable.Wait a second, how come they were able to deny his earlier request to book space? I'm glad you asked! This was a combination of two factors. One is provable, the other requires you trusting UF. Each were temporary. First, his earlier effort sought a date one month after Charlottesville. Secondly, UF claims to have received specific and credible threats of violence had Spencer spoke. Dealing with the first: Charlottesville demonstrated the tragedy that can result from an underprepared (and fashsympathizing) police force. "We needed to temporarily postpone his event so that we can create and execute a security plan" is valid. "We've had an extended period of time and his event is still postponed for the foreseeable future because security is hard" strains credulity and would merit a firm benchslap. If Florida/The US is incapable of providing a secure environment for Spencer's crew and counterprotesters, then Florida/The US no longer has a legitimate government, it has a placeholder until the inevitable coup. For the second: It's certainly plausible. Taking them at their word, it's like a bomb threat at a high school. The school would take reasonable action, up to cancelling classes, in order to confirm that the school is safe. Some lucky kid would get bailed out of a test he didn't study for or an assignment he didn't complete. But school would not be cancelled forever. Folks would start to get suspicious if the school was unable to identify the culprit(s) who made the consistent threats. As above, the least restrictive way of dealing with "He's so hateful someone might bomb him/his followers might bomb the counterprotesters" might be to delay the speech in order to strengthen security and identify the culprits. But if a speaker must overcome a reasonable fear of murder in order to exercise the right to speech, does the speaker actually have that right? The State cannot withhold 1A rights through an intentional refusal to maintain public order or investigate crime. As such, threats cannot be used to 'delay' a speech indefinitely. Any other dumb, uninteresting nonsense? Given the last graf, I'm fascinated by the intersection of first and second amendments as it comes to the Heckler's Veto. Imagine I, someone protesting against Spencer and Nazism, am afraid to protest him because of the Charlottesville violence generally and gun violence specifically combined with the police inability/unwillingness to address it. In light of the video of officers standing by as a Nazi shot at counterprotesters, that would seem to be a reasonable fear. If that's the case, then my rights of assembly and speech are being infringed upon by Spencer's crew. Assuming Spencer's event is lawful, isn't the State's inaction in allowing this hostile mob to strip my rights essentially the same as if the State had given into the heckler's veto and banned the counterprotest? The State would have to find the least restrictive way to resolve this tension, beginning with Place/Manner/Time. The effect of counterprotest is greatly diminished if not at the same time and in the same space, as such restricting these would have substantial and disproportionate impact. On the other hand, banning armed protest would appear to have relatively less impact and the effect of the restriction would be equally applied. Would the courts permit limits on 2A to minimize the restrictions on 1A? So far as I know, that's never been tested. How does this screed apply to Trump & Trumpthread? Tenuously! His eagerness to discard norms extends to his staffers in Justice and Education. Knowing the norms and your rights will help you protect them. There is precedent that even though Trump's license revocation threats are unenforceable, he's violated the First Amendment just by making them. Justice is allowing the ongoing violation of rights in St Louis with the continuing Stockley protests (fun topic for another day: How did St Louis elect another white mayor when 67% of the votes went to black candidates?). Trump and statehouses have threatened funding for schools who limit right wing assholes/refuse to limit lefties, and Betsy is not going to fight for them. Sir, sir. Sir! this is an Taco John's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:That line is so long you would think they're trying to vote 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
^^^ ^^^ Lawd Jesus! What the poo poo is that?!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:It should be noted that a lot of famous people already have obits written up, they just need to fill in dates and stuff. It's called a canned orbituary, and in one of my undergrad writing classes we had to write one for ourselves. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
The president is also supposed to present a budget to the chambers as a proposal. Do they take tweets as budget proposals now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
*Looks real hard at Paracaidas* You been drinkin', son?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
karthun posted:The Senate can take any bill that origionates in the house and replase the language to make it a budget bill. So theoretically, the Senate could take a House bill that is about, say renaming the Duluth Courthouse the Robert Zimmerman Federal Courthouse, and then add an entire federal budget to it, and then send it back to the House?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:I really hope Trump sees this and it gives him a rage driven heart attack. I regret not trying to get a position within the Trump administration so as to specifically make sure he sees this and knows it's a line for obama
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:\ I want to see your manager.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:So theoretically, the Senate could take a House bill that is about, say renaming the Duluth Courthouse the Robert Zimmerman Federal Courthouse, and then add an entire federal budget to it, and then send it back to the House? Correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:^^^ the talent deficit posted:i can't think of anyone with the right level of ability plus vitriol to live up to the nixon and reagan obits. keith olbermann maybe? ana navarro? ta nehisi coates? I'd hold out for Franken, but I'm sure they've already had him pen O'Reilly's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
The VA Democratic Party Chairwoman was on Pod Save America today. If you're still interested in helping out Ralph Northam hold the Governor's Mansion take a listen as they talk about stuff you can do if you're in (or out) of Virginia. This race is really, really important! We need everybody's help. http://podbay.fm/show/1192761536
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
I'd imagine Colbert would do a pretty good obit Patton Oswalt does a pretty good takedown in his latest Netflix thing as well, he'd probably be write something worthwhile
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:I want to see your manager. https://twitter.com/trendingevents1/status/758817539853996033
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Way too many loving words regarding Spencer and his rights or otherwise! I really don't want to do the work I brought home with me. I enjoyed reading that post, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/921207772233990144 Wacky Wilson!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:So theoretically, the Senate could take a House bill that is about, say renaming the Duluth Courthouse the Robert Zimmerman Federal Courthouse, and then add an entire federal budget to it, and then send it back to the House? If you look up bill histories on Congress.gov, you'll see that a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
(D)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
(((D)))
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/921209530628956161 President shill, so what
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Again the widow also corroborated what she said. Trump: Wacky War Widows Will Wreck Whatever We’re Witnessing. WILD WOMEN!!! Edit: Covok are you OK buddy? Don’t sound like your old self 
Spiffster fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Call me crazy, but this seems bad. Do not despair, my brother, for this is but a road bump on our road to victory. Just like with healthcare, many dark omens such as this foul, putrid horrid affair took place. Many terrible things leaked in and spread despair, but, in the end, our resistance bred victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/921209530628956161 Mods please, name change to Big Ratings Getter. Please
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
I get that you put together a big effort post, but I'm afraid this just isn't true. The concept of a nominal fee is not strictly defined, and it is quite possible to put together a standard security fee schedule based on the level of security required. The courts have been pretty clear about the idea that universities can charge fees so long as they can show that the need for services is real and not arbitrarily based on the content of the speech. If you're holding an event that is going to require a lot of security, then you can be expected to pay for it. Otherwise universities would never be able to hold events, because they'd literally have to charge everyone the exact same price regardless of scale. And trust me, if your sort of interpretation takes hold in the court system, expect universities to start being a lot more choosy about who they let do events, or just pulling out of the public system entirely, because frankly there's no way they can afford to regularly drop $500,000 for every nutcase that wants to hold a rally on their grounds. I think you're really underestimating how common an issue this is for most universities. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:07
|
|
