Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wawazat" data-source="post: 3910578" data-attributes="member: 35603"><p>I understand the point you're making and there is always a chance, but I think his point is that there are a few too many circumstantial assumptions to try and write a law that is most likely in direct disagreement with the 1A to try and prevent it.</p><p></p><p>I think my stance after thinking this through is that no legitimate law should restrict an otherwise lawful action on the assumption it could bring about an unlawful action. The response I am most comfortable with is should that unlawful action come to fruition, all inciters and participants are made examples of the responsibility we take when we decide to livestream or otherwise risk inciting civil unrest.</p><p></p><p>This certainly doesnt imply I am confident my opinion is what is best for public policy, but it what makes the most sense to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wawazat, post: 3910578, member: 35603"] I understand the point you're making and there is always a chance, but I think his point is that there are a few too many circumstantial assumptions to try and write a law that is most likely in direct disagreement with the 1A to try and prevent it. I think my stance after thinking this through is that no legitimate law should restrict an otherwise lawful action on the assumption it could bring about an unlawful action. The response I am most comfortable with is should that unlawful action come to fruition, all inciters and participants are made examples of the responsibility we take when we decide to livestream or otherwise risk inciting civil unrest. This certainly doesnt imply I am confident my opinion is what is best for public policy, but it what makes the most sense to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom