SUPREME COURT SUPERTHREAD 2010

[angelofdeath]

This is the person who thinks his DUI conviction is wrong because the cops weren't even supposed to pull him over. He'll spend his entire life telling everyone who'll listen that, even though he was drunk and driving, none of that matters because the cops 'done him wrong'.

 

this is just hilarious.

obviously a gross misinterpretation of the bill of rights or liberty in general.

 

so lets elaborate on this (since you refused to answer my question why you think some large mega corps should have rights (media outlets) but other large mega corps shoudnt (everyone else) )

 

will you just mock those who take a stance for civil liberties if say.... the police knock down your door one night, without a warrant, they find what they say is a pot seed you left laying around or your friend dropped, they throw you in jail, refuse to charge you with any thing, strip you of your citizenship, refuse your right to habeus corpus and hold you in a secret prison for 5 years and torture you because they claim you are now a 'terrorist' or will you just shrug and say...'well, you know, them terrorists sell drugs and all, and even though they broke the law in more ways than i can count, i was guilty so, i'll just sit back and take it up the ass while people like AOD are out there talking about liberty and talking about trying to defend it. they are just conspiracy kooks... this stuff doesnt happen. '

 

it happened to jose padilla... he was arrested after having a CONVERSATION overseas. his citizenship was stripped, he was locked away with charge. no bomb materials found, no evidence. just a conversation. the ends justify the means i guess. gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette so the saying of communist thugs goes....

 

yeah, this never happens in america. they always follow the 'law.' me and my storm front buddies made all this stuff up, while we were clinging to our 'guns and religion.'

[Decyferon]

but did you get a DUI? and don't believe the police had a right to pull you over? because if you did get one then and were driving under the influence then I don't understand your point, you broke the law and got the DUI.

[angelofdeath]

but did you get a DUI? and don't believe the police had a right to pull you over? because if you did get one then and were driving under the influence then I don't understand your point, you broke the law and got the DUI.

 

no, i didnt get a DUI. i dont drink at all. never have in my life. he is just trying to make some silly arrogant point to prove some case he is trying to make against me

[Decyferon]

I think the point about media outlets having freedom of speech is all to do with the freedom of press to report news without censorship. I don't see a problem with that at all. I don't believe huge companies should have freedom of speech, because they need to give purely factual advice. Otherwise you would have Microsoft saying shit like using Apple gives you cancer (in the most simple scenario).

[angelofdeath]

i know what the point is... its just silly to be hypocritical about stuff.

its no different than saying the black guy has no freedom of speech, but the white guy does.

 

the new york times for example is a huge mega corporation. it has free speech rights. the company/corporation that made the hilary clinton movie didnt have free speech rights.

[Decyferon]

I would say it is completely different to comparing a black and white guys freedom of speech, they are individuals. A Huge multinational company like Shell has a obligation to be truthful, not just spout any nonsense that they want.

 

I havent seen the hilary clinton movie or know what it is about but if it is just a miriad of untruths that the comany has produced to manipulate it's agenda then I agree it shouldn't have freedom of speech, this is where slander laws come into play.

[angelofdeath]

I would say it is completely different to comparing a black and white guys freedom of speech, they are individuals. A Huge multinational company like Shell has a obligation to be truthful, not just spout any nonsense that they want.

 

I havent seen the hilary clinton movie or know what it is about but if it is just a miriad of untruths that the comany has produced to manipulate it's agenda then I agree it shouldn't have freedom of speech, this is where slander laws come into play.

 

the topic of corporations vs individual rights has been thrown around enough. no one agrees on that.

 

which is why i brought up the fact that cnn news can say whatever the hell they want, but this group of guys cant put out a movie about hilary clinton before an election.

i've never seen it. but its silly to think that we need a governmental body to 'regulate what is truth.' truth according to whom? it might be pretty simple to regulate something like someones birth date. but all political speech is considered 'false' by the people on the OTHER side. the bushies still think they were and are still right about wmd's in iraq. everyone else knows they are wrong, but should we have a police force lock up the people who still say that there is wmd's in iraq?

 

im personally against this. 'truth' and separation of fact from fiction can just as easily be attained through competition in the market place. alot of people think fox news is untruthful. alot of people think cnn is untruthful. you can find reliability through competition.

[Decyferon]

but the thing is news companies cannot say whtever they want, CNN couldn't turn around and make a report saying that the Jews are the reason the world is in such a huge fucked up situation, they would be prosecuted under libel/slander laws.

 

Freedom of the press is there because it means they can report things that aren't in the interests of government/companies etc, they can report the truth (I know this is very subjective and all major news companies are biased) but they have an obligation to report the news, not just make up complete fantasy works of fiction. This is why we have multiple news sources.

 

A Major company that has the right to say whatever it wants can just lie about it's products/it's competitors and mislead the whole public to believing something that is not true. This is why there are laws in place (in the UK at least) that measn companies cannot do this, their advertising has to be correct and claims they make have to be validated and backed up or they get huge fines.

[angelofdeath]

ok, so lets leave aside the legitimacy of slander laws for a second and i'll concede.

 

why cant the group of people make a movie about hilary, (exercise of free speech)but the new york times can say what they want to about a republican, given that slander laws are in place to protect people against slanderous claims?

[Decyferon]

It is hard for me to comment on that without knowing what the hilary Clinton film is about. If it is a non slanderous film and is based on fact then I don't see an issue with it, however if it is a film that is libel and slanderous and is being used for political intentions to tar the woman then I don't belive they have the right to free speech as a company.

[angelofdeath]

have you ever seen political ads before? if we are to ban 'slanderous' political speech, we would have to ban it ALL

 

but lets go another route...

what about michael moore's film f-911. some on the bush right consider it to be a slanderous attack on the president. most on the left think it is all truth. since the movie was put out by a corporation, should michael moore's company not be allowed to speak freely?

 

even the ACLU has it right:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

 

so much for you supposed 'free speech' activists on the board

[Decyferon]

With the Michael Moore case, yea obviously the Bushites don't agree with it, and Michael Moore is hardly subjective either, but in order for it to be slanderous they will need to refute the points made in it in a court of law, they know they cannot do that therefore it isnt slanderous. There is a distinct differnce better people percieving something as slanderous and it actually being slanderous. This is why I can't comment on the hilary clinton film having not seen it.

 

Obvioulsy I can only comment on UK political broadcasts which are generally laughable, but I have seen some American ones and I don't understand why anyone would pay attention to them, every party that puts one out in America seems a flag waving patriotism bullshit with soft music in the background.

[angelofdeath]

so how is it proven in a court of law if something is slanderous? its ultimately up to an appointed unaccountable judge. once you allow the government to break the law, such as the first amendment that says congress shall write no law abriding free speech, freedom of the press, etc. you open the door for any number of abuses of the 'right.' the camels nose is under the tent. we know what happens.

 

while it is easy for one to sit back and say...'well, you can say this, but not that' in their arm chairs, it is another thing in practice. if you pass a law abridging a certain type of speech, breaking the bill of rights, there is nothing stopping another group of people from passing another law abridging speech that you think is perfectly fine and legal to say. a neo con right wing administration that makes bush look like childs play could easily take over ban you from doing whatever they tell you. it that is why the constitution is a good thing. it limits the states reach.

 

should it be illegal to call bush a war criminal, even if its true, because it is slanderous? after all he was the president and the commander in chief.

 

which brings us to the next point... what should the penalty be for someone who speaks their mind and it is labeled 'slanderous?' should they be fined, jailed, jailed for life, death penalty? i mean where do you draw the line. are we to follow the totalitarian regimes that label people who speak their mind, enemies of the state and throw them in a work camp for the rest of their lives or beat the oppressed masses with the butts of our gun stocks to force them to speak how you want them to?

[Decyferon]

Because if you start saying a court of law has no right to decide whether a law is upheld or not then you might as well just throw out the whole justice system and release every criminal that has ever been convicted.

 

The buck has to stop somewhere and the decision that we as a decent modern society have made is that we have courts of laws and judges who are in charge in them.

 

I could quite easily turn around and say to you that if a court of law has no right to decide whether it is wrong or not then I can say the constitution has no power and is completely irrelevant.

 

It is not illegal to say that Bush is a war criminal because it is true, he was commander in chief and he has violated human rights laws such as condoning torture.

 

Yes if someone has been convicted of slander/libel/defamation of character then yes they should be prosecuted, the law determines the sentance. Most of the time it is just a hefty fine. It isn't about whether it is labelled slanderous, it is about if it has been PROVEN in a court of law to actually be slanderous, it goes from being labelled slanderous to being actually slanderous.

[angelofdeath]

Because if you start saying a court of law has no right to decide whether a law is upheld or not then you might as well just throw out the whole justice system and release every criminal that has ever been convicted.

 

The buck has to stop somewhere and the decision that we as a decent modern society have made is that we have courts of laws and judges who are in charge in them.

 

I could quite easily turn around and say to you that if a court of law has no right to decide whether it is wrong or not then I can say the constitution has no power and is completely irrelevant.

 

the constitution created the court system. it is the ultimate authority of law.

i am in favor of courts and justice. but the government cant even follow its own basic laws... one that says...'congress shall write no laws abridging free speech or freedom of the press, etc'

 

yet we shrug our shoulders and go into hysterics if the court rules that a group of people can put out a film about hilary clinton and that it shouldnt be banned or that abraham lincoln shut down some 300 northern newpapers during the civil war.

 

yet, you are in favor of judges abridging free speech if you dont like that type of speech. you want healthcare passed that is unconstitutional. a violation of the constitution, the supreme law of the land. so how can you talk about the 'law?'

 

It is not illegal to say that Bush is a war criminal because it is true, he was commander in chief and he has violated human rights laws such as condoning torture.

 

im sure a bush appointed court would DISAGREE with you.

republicans would disagree with you. obama is condoning torture and continuing an undeclared unconstitutional war... can we say he is a war criminal or should we be thrown in jail?

 

Yes if someone has been convicted of slander/libel/defamation of character then yes they should be prosecuted, the law determines the sentance. Most of the time it is just a hefty fine. It isn't about whether it is labelled slanderous, it is about if it has been PROVEN in a court of law to actually be slanderous, it goes from being labelled slanderous to being actually slanderous.

 

and slander is subjective.

 

i have worked with state vehicle inspectors my whole life.

one thing that strikes me as odd is this saying that they almost always say...'i have to take a look at it' when asked if something passes inspection or not. its the same thing judges do. they get to pick and choose and ultimately decide for themselves. they get away with it because we have let judges be the sole decider of what the federal government can and cannot do.

[Decyferon]

I havent heard Obama condone torture, I have heard him condemn it. As for an unconstitutional war that is another matter. I believe the war is illegal, we shouldn't have invaded the countries we did. But then again as I said before I do not believe in the constitution and its relevance in the modern world so to say it is an unconstitutional war is irrelevant to me, I am only concerned with law.

 

Slander may be subjective, however if it is proven in a court of law, under the guidelines set in place by the law then the person should be prosecuted. Free speech is one thing spreading flase lies and ruining someones career/reputation etc is not free speech it is malicious and false and deserves to be punished if it is found to be slanderous under the guidelines set in place by the law.

 

Also judges dont just make decisions themselves, there is a jury of our peers that make the decision, the judge just passes sentance.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The Constitution is law..

 

At least it used to be, our constitutional rights are being stripped one by one until the document itself will just be a piece of paper we look at museum's.

[Decyferon]

ok while it is the law, it doesn't cover every possibility that there is, it isn't the only law there is.

 

Law is a lot more complex nowadays than it was in the 18th century, society has moved on, business has moved on, technology has moved on, this is why I don't see the relevance of living abiding to a document that is so outdated.

[angelofdeath]

As for an unconstitutional war that is another matter. I believe the war is illegal, we shouldn't have invaded the countries we did. But then again as I said before I do not believe in the constitution and its relevance in the modern world so to say it is an unconstitutional war is irrelevant to me, I am only concerned with law.

 

US law is based on the constitution. it created US federal law. it is US federal law. something cannot be 'illegal' and constitutional. congress holds the authority to declare war. no one or group can besides congress. not even the president.

 

Slander may be subjective, however if it is proven in a court of law, under the guidelines set in place by the law then the person should be prosecuted. Free speech is one thing spreading flase lies and ruining someones career/reputation etc is not free speech it is malicious and false and deserves to be punished if it is found to be slanderous under the guidelines set in place by the law.

 

so you have no problem if a court determines that you are guilty of slander and throws you in jail or fines you if your straight friend who you called 'gay' in a passing and joking manner filed a slander suit against you? what if the court doesnt think it was a joke ?

 

i guess we might as well address slander and falsehoods.

look at tabloids. a tabloid might have a head line like....'president obama: descended from Aliens!"

should the people that wrote this go to jail and get fined? i think not. anyone with half a brain can weed through this and determine its truth or untruth. while im not a "9/11 truther'' should these people go to prison if they are presenting a false 'truth' to the american people? if you are serious about false statements... why stop at this type of speech, why the double standard? why dont you favor throwing little kids in jail for lying to their parents when they say they didnt eat that peice of candy but they really did? why not lock up lying husbands who told their wives they worked late when they really stopped by the bar to have a beer before coming home?

 

why does it have to be malicious and false? what if a person who works for the boy scouts of america really is gay? what if someone figures this out and they fire him because they dont want 'teh queerz' being around kids? the proponents of slander and libel law make it sound like something has to be false to be malicious. perfect truth can be just as 'malicious'

 

i bring up most of this because you have openly stated that you think any group of people (corporation) or individual that lies should be prosecuted.

 

but the main reason slander and libel laws are illegitimate is because you do not 'own' your reputation. your reputation is what someone else thinks of you. so how can you 'own' it?

 

and how do you propose to have a free speech/slander police work in your world, decy? do you really suggest we have the government determine whose speech is falsehood and whose is truth? the government has been probably the most deceitful and group most prone to lie in history. i surely do not trust them with determining what i can and cannot say and if it is 'libel' or not and punishable by jail or fine.

 

im only concerned with protecting rights. something that damages your reputation, ie. what others think of you, is not a violation of your rights. it may not be nice or advantageous to have someone running around spreading false malicious rumors about you, but it is not a criminal violation of your rights.

[Decyferon]

If someone spreads falsehoods about you and for instance you lose your job, then it has gone beyond your reputation you have lost something concrete, your income, the chance of being re-employed. Say you are claimed that you are a paedophile, it is shown in court you are not, but your reputation has been hurt and your chances of employment etc are hurt then yes they should be prosecuted and you should be paid damages. Works perfectly well in this country I don't see a problem.

 

Your comment about the ludicrous claims made in tabloids, well I agree anyone with half a brain would know Obama isn't decended from Aliens and those papers that print stuff like that are not ever taken seriously. I am talking about serious claims, not stupid ludicrous claims. There is a major difference.

[angelofdeath]

the same exact scenario was used on here before... but.

in summation your argument is this:

 

some jerk off cant spread falsehoods and/or malicious rumors but other jerk offs (tabloids) can say what they want because....well... they just can.

what if the malicious rumor that got your fired was indeed true, but you still lost your job?

its free speech then?

 

point being htat it is entirely to arbitrary and subjective to try to even attempt to justify slander and libel law as it is not a violation of your rights.

numerous other factors could lead to a job loss and loss of income. i see this as no bearing at all as to whether slander actually violates your rights.

[Decyferon]

if it is found to be true and I lost my job then it isn't slander, it is fact.

[angelofdeath]

^^^ then you admit that you losing your job has no real bearing on your rights...

 

because if someone says something that doesnt really matter, like you take a bath with a rubber ducky and its true... and you lose your job... that person who said it shouldnt go to jail.

[Decyferon]

No because it was true, if I lost my job because of a comment like that then I would simply take the employer to court, claim unfair dismissal and recieve a huge payout for illegal termination of my job.

 

If someone claimed I was a pedophile, and I lost my job then I would be able to have that person prosecuted under libel/slander laws and also have the employer taken to court through unfair dismissal as well.

[angelofdeath]

No because it was true, if I lost my job because of a comment like that then I would simply take the employer to court, claim unfair dismissal and recieve a huge payout for illegal termination of my job.

 

If someone claimed I was a pedophile, and I lost my job then I would be able to have that person prosecuted under libel/slander laws and also have the employer taken to court through unfair dismissal as well.

 

i dont want to get into other areas of job termination like other laws that forbid terminating jobs for whatever reason they have these days... but i want to keep the conversation on reputations.

 

protecting a reputation is not an absolute value.

if reputations were really sacrosanct we would have to prohibit most categories of denigration including truthful ones. satire in movies or tv shows (saturday night live skits about presidents, sarah palin, etc) parodies, critical book reviews, literary criticism. anything which diminished any individual or institutions reputation would have to be forbidden.

 

a reputation is not a possession or ones own property. you do not own it. it is what other people think of you. the thoughts of others. you cannot own a reputation any more than you can own the thoughts of other people. a reputation cannot be stolen or infringed on any more than you can steal ones thoughts. whether a reputation is taken from someone by fair means or foul means, he didnt own it in the first place, so he should have no recourse with the law

 

so the libel law says you cannot affect the thoughts of others. but to me that is nothing more than what free speech is... a freedom to try to affect the thoughts of others.

 

some argue that without libel and slander laws reputations would actually be more secure. due to the laws on the books people generally believe any slur against someones reputation because it is illegal spread the slur to begin with."it wouldnt be printed if it wasnt true"

 

if libel and slander were 'legal' they would have to be substantiated before they are believed. the public would soon learn to evaluate the slanderer's remarks and a slanderer would have to work harder to actually harm a reputation of someone. some even say consumers union type organizations would develop just like consumer reports to evaluate claims. look at snopes.com

[Decyferon]

Yea while you may not be able to own a reputation, without taking into account what happens following the libel statements then it is a pointless discussion.

[angelofdeath]

i did take it into account.

we already agreed that it doesnt matter why an employer fires you... like if they fire you because they heard a truthful claim about you taking a bath with a rubber ducky.

so the outcome doesnt matter.

we are talking about if your rights are violated. since you dont own the reputation, your rights are not violated. therefore you have no more right to go use the state against the employer that fired you whether its for a truthful rumor he heard or an untruthful rumor. your reputation that you do not own wasnt damaged, so the outcome of the reputation ruination isnt a violation of your rights.

 

its like supporting a law that says you have the right to take someone to court because someone damaged your neighbors lawn.

[Decyferon]

I didn't agree it doesn't matter why an employer fires you, a company can only fire you if you commit gross misconduct, don't perform your job to expected standards or you have been through the disciplinary process and your contract is terminated.

[angelofdeath]

then if they can only fire you for 'gross misconduct' why in the hell are you worried about someone slandering you? you just negated your entire argument against slander and libel.

 

i suppose you should then take my position on free speech.

;)

 

then we can have a discussion about the laws of free association.

[Decyferon]

Well it isn't so important for people in our line of work we are too low and unimportant, it is very rare for people like us to get involved in these sort of cases. But say a pro sports player gets accused of being a paedophiles and his team drops his contract because of the negative press on the team that is where it comes into play.

 

Libel and slander is only really applicable for high profile or people in the public spot light.

 

The only time it would be applicable for us is if these comments made our work unbearable and we had to leave our jobs.