Yet Another Blatant Attack on the First Amendment

It's your opinion, Bob, which has no power or authority.

 

My "authority" is the English language dictionary, it's not opinion, it's not theory, it's English words that are part of the Constitution. That is not debatable, even the blind accept those words as truth. Your "authority" apparently is hot air. If you can't/won't interpret "Congress shall make no law" in accordance with universally accepted English language words and grammar then you have nothing at all, not even your own personal "interpretation". We often agree on many things, on this you're being totally dishonest.

As for "power", all I have is knowledge and the intellectual capacity to use it to the best of my ability, that's power enough for me.

 

Bob, you can have any opinion you wish, and everyone can vet for themselves your knowledge and intellectual capacity as well as what is done with it.

What is fact is this: case law and SCOTUS are what determines what is or is not constitutional.

 

That’s not my point. You were presenting this as some kind of new and additional restriction of existing freedoms when in reality in has been possible and happened pretty much since the popularisation of the internet.

It’s meaningless for you to object to these laws because you believe they have bad outcomes since you’d still object to them on the First Amendment principle even if they had good outcomes. You’ve effectively declared that you don’t care about actual outcomes, only the fundamental legal principles.

Even if it’s existing, maybe historic material and no current child is being exploited? Based on your arguments about the human trafficking, wouldn’t the authorities be required to definitively prove in court that children had been harmed by the republication of the material before they could legally act against the website?

Or maybe it could be drawings or writing rather than actual photographs? Wouldn’t that be unconditionally permitted under your principle, regardless of how horrific or how wide an audience it was broadcast to? That’s the kind of consequences we must think about when considering this kind of thing.

 

Sorry, if you are inside the borders of the US, then it's for you as well.

lol. godwin

No, I am explaining constitutional law to you.

 

Thanks for your irrelevant permission.

That's partially correct. Only SCOTUS determines what is or is not constitutional, it is a power granted by Article III, I never argued otherwise. Case "law" is only a contrived legalistic tool, it determines nothing and has no constitutional authority. But none of that has anything to do with the First Amendment and the words "Congress shall make no law". You are evading the issue as expected.

 

Here again I'm not sure what you're getting at. FOSTA is a very recent "law".

It's not just about bad outcomes although that is a key concern for all Americans, including me of course, it's about a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Who on earth told you I don't care about outcomes anyway? If that were true this thread would not exist. You're inventing utter garbage.

Other than exigent circumstances that would require immediate action, absolutely, that's called DUE PROCESS, protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

My immediate concern is the violation of the First Amendment by the US government. All of these issues you're trying to bring to the forefront are fluff (sidetrack) designed to defend (coverup) the clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

By telling me you're explaining constitutional law to me? Yeah, thanks.

 

No, by actually explaining it to you.

 

I was talking about the legal powers to seize websites, not the specific reasoning for it. I’m not even sure this FOSTA law is relevant here since the initial action against this site seems to predate it. That’s all rather moot to the fundamental discussion here anyway.

I’m suggesting you don’t care about outcomes because they play literally zero function in your justification. You’re not saying the First Amendment is unconditional because that will create better outcomes or prevent harm, you’re saying the First Amendment is unconditional simply because it exists. By implication, even if following your principle would actively cause harm you wouldn’t change course.

You’re basically talking about blindly following the law just because it is the law and the fact we’re talking about the ultimate law of the land doesn’t really make that any better. Do you believe that’s what the founders intended?

 

Bob, you don't need my permission, you have the right already. Nonsense comments about case law as " contrived legalistic tool" is a la la statement that ignores reality. Your arguments are like a small wall of beach side within the tide line of American reality, and has a much to withstand the tide.

 

Ok and since you brought that up I am derelict in pointing out that all these "seizure" laws, including "asset forfeiture" laws violate the 5th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments. That should be part of a secondary discussion.

You may be correct here, however the seizure of the website coincides with the passage of FOSTA so it's quite possible that the authorities may have been emboldened by its impending passage.

Agreed, the discussion is more about blatant constitutional violations by the US government.

You are making wholesale ASSumptions about me. The existence of the First Amendment is critical because of potential serious adverse outcomes if it did not exist. So do I want it enforced only because it exists? Absolutely not, yours is a silly assumption.

See above, you're 100% incorrect. If anything, many posters here are talking about blindly following the law regardless that most of these laws are unconstitutional. I can't speak for you but it seems to me that includes you since I don't see any post from you that even questions the constitutionality of FOSTA or the illegal seizure of the Backpage website absent due process. In fact you consistantly argue in favor.

The intent of the (prevailing) founders is written in the Declaration of Independence and its supporting document, the Constitution. That is black and white and not a belief.

 

More silly nonsense. What I post IS reality. I completely understand the application of case law since I've used it myself in many legal briefs I've written. If you want to beat them at their own game you have to play by their rules and that's exactly what I did in one federal case as a sui juris plaintiff and 3 other local cases as a sui juris defendant. I've never lost a case. It doesn't change the fact that case law should never exist other than as a legal guideline. Unfortunately it has the effect of law and constitutional amendment, which is 100% unconstitutional.

 

No, it's not. Your opinions on the Constitution often do not comport with the real world within which we all, including you, live. Carry on.

 

And what does that mean exactly? Are you saying I should have no opinions on the Constitution unless they are in perfect alignment with majority mentality? If that were the case this thread wouldn't exist, there would be no reason for me state any opinion or I would be a bend over robot just like you and many others here. Coming from someone who refuses to accept the English language definition of "Congress shall make no law" as written in black and white and as absolute truth, I wouldn't talk about the real world if I were you.