Yet Another Blatant Attack on the First Amendment

No, Bob, you are giving your personal opinion, which is rightfully being rejected. MLK Jr pointed out that Hitler's legality was unethical and immoral. That does not mean that so is American law today.

 

It isn't a new law. The US (like most western nations) has long has laws allowing the warranted seizure of illegal published material. You're back to making additional arguments to support your objection though, which remain entirely irrelevant in the context of your unconditional objection on the basis of the First Amendment.

Back to my point about consequences; Do you accept that your position would make hosting child porn websites (not creating, just hosting existing material) would be entirely legal? Wouldn't your preferred legal environment make the USA the new home of such disgusting criminal websites?

 

It take only a few moments to move a website off the open net and onto the darknet.

Hell they been trying to force thepiratebay off the net for years without luck.

The best that they had done so far is to cause them to play cat and mouse games of moving around the open net from one domains to another and keep a tor site up and running as a fall back site.

The net can not be censor.

Oh I did a fast check and not to my surprise found that the drug open market site silk road website is once more up and running an this is in spite of a fortune in federal manpower and and other resources having been used to shut them down a few times and arrest the then owners.

 

You don't have any answers, you have nothing but evasions and fallacies.

It's not my ALL CASES, those are words in the Constitution. I didn't invent those words. Whether that makes sense to you or not is as irrelevant as you are.

Agreed but it often does not.

The Article III powers of the judiciary are literally spelled out whether you want to pretend they are or not.

Says the person who believes the Constitution is merely a guideline for authority to use or not use as it pleases. I could just as easily say your point of view is dead wrong and impractical, but it does serve a banana republic quite well.

You are free to dismiss everything I post, you already do. It doesn't change the fact that the only Amendment that trumps another is the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th. There is nothing arguable/debatable about the words "Congress shall make no law ..." except in you imagination.

Obviously you show you have no clue. It's about both. Corrupt business practices violate individual rights. It is the government's constitutional mandate and duty to protect all individual rights, from government AND from others otherwise it is not a government that serves The People and absolutely worthless. That is enshrined in our founding document and mandated by the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

It's not a theory, it's reality. But I agree, of course it's not used and hasn't been used since the day after it was ratified. That's the problem and why this thread (and many others) exist.

 

I wrote the last part wrong it should have been it doesn't protect corrupt business practices.

I'll be back to follow the thread gtg for now...

 

But its users can be penalized financially.

 

It was obviously directed at American law. You completely missed King's point. Why on earth would King be talking about Hitler's laws when he spent his remaining days protesting the US government?

 

I will be back at a later time for other responses. These are interesting discussions and the reason why I started this thread.

 

Which has nothing to do with today, Bob. MLK Jr was murdered 50 years ago, yes?

 

You started all of this to push your constitutionalist theory. I will be here, too.

 

In the hermit state of California the California Governor, State Attorney General and the liberals and reconquista socialist in the state legislature protect the Mexican cartels who operate most of the human trafficking operations.

I've had tnhree former state legislatures tell me that the cartels have their own lobbyist walking on the floors of the state legisture advocating sanctuary cities, protecting illegal aliens, criminals and ;pushing for more gun laws since the black market gun trafficking was quadruple in California and criminals are willing to pay big bucks for untraceable guns (ghost guns) that are smuggled into America by the international gun traffickers.

You can't buy an AR in a sporting goods store in California but sure can on the streets because of liberals really stupid gun laws.

And guess who got caught in smuggling guns into America and California ?

One has to wonder how many more Democrats in Sacramento and in local municipalities are legislating for the cartels and international gun traffickers ?
Jerry Brown ? Xavier Becerra ? Gavin Newsom ? Kevin De Leon ? etc, erc,... ?

How about in the U.S. Senate ? If California Attorney General Kamila Harris was protecting the cartels in California why not in the U.S. Senate today ?

 

Not if they know what they are doing and the information is available on the net in details beginning with picking foreign base vpn services.

In fact the record companies have plenty must given up suing their customers and gone with streaming services and such in order to give their customers what they wish for in the first place at a reasonable cost without the need to go to the trouble of using such sites as thepiratebay.

 

keep hoping, BillRM

 

Oh so you are saying it is possible to trace an evil downloader who is using a burger king hot spot or a foreign vpn or whatever?

Hell even with zero precautions the chance of being sue for file sharings is about the same as winning the power ball lottery.

That business model had been try and found to not reduce the file sharings and being far far more costly to the right holders then they gain.

 

I just did a fast check for the hell of it so far this year there been a few hundreds copyright cases file by porn companies and all of 15 repeat 15 cases by a mainspring movie company.

Not other cases in a nation of 300 million plus.

 

Then that needs some attention.

 

Of course it is, it was signed by Trump today at 11 AM.

All laws that violate the First Amendment are null and void from inception. That fact doesn't change just because the US government has long had such laws. They are all illegal.

Sorry I lost you there, please re-phrase.

Hosting child porn sites is complicity to violating the rights of children who have no control over being exploited. Why is it complicity? Because the perpetrators are knowingly engaged in the crime of exploiting children. Again, that's covered by the 9th Amendment which is a requirement for the government to protect ALL individual rights not specified by the remainder of the Constitution. That is far different than an ambiguous law that arbitrarily shuts down sites where it is unknown/unclear that sex trafficking is taking place. That first has to be determined by a valid court of law with all due process protections retained (so does the first point BTW). Your entire premise has zero to do with "Congress shall make no law ...". There's nothing ambiguous about those words, it's not debatable and certainly not theoretical.

 

C'mon that's laughable. It has everything to do with yesterday and perhaps even more so today given the litany of unconstitutional laws enacted in the last 50 years. Again, I doubt you understand the point.

 

No I started this to discuss a direct frontal attack on the First Amendment. It isn't theory, it's demonstrable fact (already well demonstrated).

 

Not interested in fact—happily married with no need of those services. But why should I care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? None of my business...

 

No, Bob, it does not work that way, and your theory is not fact.

 

I know it doesn't work the way it's supposed to. If it did this thread would not exist. The First Amendment is not theory, it's fact. And the words "Congress shall make no law ..." is also black and white fact, not theory. Anyone who can read English should have no problem understanding what that means. But apparently there are several posters here who don't understand and believe it's either theory or a guideline.

 

Your interp of the 1stA is opinion not fact, Bob.

 

My interpretation??? Please tell me your interpretation of "Congress shall make no law", use any English language dictionary if you need help with the words.