Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The First Amendment under attack...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Autolycus, Jul 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003114976_danny09.html

    Where is the country going?
     
  2. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Exactly where many people who often get classed as "Conspiracy Theorists" & "Tinfoil Hat Nuts" have long feared.:( :banghead:
     
  3. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,983
    It's easy to become despondent about incidents such as this and conclude that they indicate a new and deplorable direction. But in fact there's nothing new about situations like these in the United States.

    Do some homework on censorship in America, with particular attention to the following for starters: D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover; Henry Miller, The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn; Margaret Sanger and contraception. You can go back even further in time.

    What these magazine publishers will do or should do if their case is virtuous, is to file suit. My guess is that they will win said suit.

    The most interesting thing about this incident (and my information is no more than what you've posted) is that it's further evidence of what everyone here should know but that many people seem to forget. It's rare for insignificant rights to be attacked. When a right is attacked there's an unmistakable sign that the right is significant, and when it's attacked repeatedly and forcefully, that right must be mightily significant. It therefore demands vigorous defense even by people who are not directly affected by that particular attack. Because when any right is attacked successfully and destroyed, all of the rest become susceptible and eventually will topple.

    To turn this discussion away from gambling specifically and into a channel that seems more appropriate to this forum, it has always troubled me that many Americans don't care to defend the Second Amendment because they themselves have no interest in keeping and bearing arms. Their position is shortsighted. Let the Second Amendment fall and there is precedent to destroy other amendments, starting (I think) with the First Amendment. That's why I've always been even more troubled by widespread antagonism from the media towards the Second Amendment issues. My best explanation is that they, most of them, must be so naive and ill educated that they can't see that they're next.
     
  4. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    This comment would seem to belie the title of the article in which it appears:

    Yeah, no freedom of speech, maybe.

    I do think the prohibition on online gambling is kinda silly in a state where there are three card rooms within walking distance of my house, and a number of tribal casinos littered around as well.
     
  5. Nehemiah Scudder

    Nehemiah Scudder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    They would have a tough time winning the suit, because I betcha that a significant percentage of thier advertising comes from illegal internet gambling outfits.

    Is advertising part of free speech? Why haven't the alchohol and tobacco companies appealed to the Supreme Court?
     
  6. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    I agree with you about the fact many only protect the amendments they have an interest in. I have many friends like this who think that the 2nd is kind of pointless. I always have to ask why they put it right after the first? They say that religion and freedom of thought was very important to the founding fathers. They also say the 4th and 5th are very important but they negelct the 2nd and 3rd amendmnets. There logic does not fly, because I think the Founding Fathers put the BOR in order of importance.

    I also think that the alcohol and tobacco companies should make an appeal to the SCOTUS. It is a freedom of expression issue. If people are so offended by advertisements then they should not watch or read anything with those advertisements.

    Its 3:20 am and my time for bed. Please ignore my rambling.
     
  7. Warren

    Warren Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,454
    Location:
    Northern California
    Moron legislators passing moronic laws that are supposed to "help" the small percentage of compulsive morons that cannot control their gambling.

    So the many pay for the idiocy of the few....again.

    I remember some idiot republican out of AZ IIRC that had a big chubby for making online gaming illegal. That did not get a lot of traction and died out. But I'm sure he is still there and will try again especially if Wa State's law is upheld.

    As to the magazine ban I'm sure a lawsuit is a'comin. I. Nelson Rose (pro-gaming lawyer) is not the sort to let something like this just happen.
     
  8. mrmeval

    mrmeval Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,768
    Location:
    Greenwood, Indiana
    If the magazines let it gnaw on that state by NOT filing suit then it is an open and unsettled wound. I would prefer the gangrene to eat the heart out of the scum that passed the law.
     
  9. Nehemiah Scudder

    Nehemiah Scudder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    The laws against Internet gambling are there for more reasons that just to stop degenerate gamblers. They're outside U.S. jurisdiction so they're totally unregulatable. That means that there's no penalty at all against rigging the games, charging outrageous interest, flat-out ripping you off.
     
  10. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    Where has the country gone?




    had to correct the tense
     
  11. mrmeval

    mrmeval Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,768
    Location:
    Greenwood, Indiana
    So get rid of welfare and let the stupid gamblers live in boxes.
     
  12. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572

    Let the market regulate its self? What would happen, in the absence of govt regulation, is that companies would develop reputations for fairness and for fraud. With the internet being such a good conduit for the exchange of information, the industry would self regulate in short order. Its kind of like the buyer rating stuff on e-bay. Would you sell something to a buyer with 200 negative responses versus one with 1000 positive responses? Why not let the gambler be responsible for his own due diligence?

    Or do you have some sort of a problem with free market capitalism?
     
  13. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
    Fixed.
     
  14. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,941
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    The Senate passed an internet gambling regulation bill yesterday. I haven't read it but heard some of the debate, partly interesting libertarian basics from Ron Paul. The debate focused mainly on gambling by minors. It left me wondering just where the line is for how much parenting, whether for minors or adults, should come from Congress. Other supposed behavior controls are sin taxes, mostly at State levels. Those just wind up taxing the poor, solving nothing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2006
  15. Nehemiah Scudder

    Nehemiah Scudder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    391
    There is that, too. It is nice to think that the tax on the stupid (gambling aka. the Lotto) is going to some good use somewhere. (Like reducing property taxes.)

    The problem with total free market capatalism is that, by the time you get done researching everything to make sure you're getting the best deal, then you'd have precious little time to do anything else. And, for gambling in particular, especially the smaller stuff, I don't see gamblers as pretty motivated to care that much, as long as the chicanery isn't blatantly obvious.

    I could be wrong, and there could be a lot of Internet gambling watchdog sites out there. Haven't researched it.
     
  16. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Sgt. Bob nailed the real reason that the state is so "protective" of its citizens. The state isn't getting its cut of gambling that takes place online.
     
  17. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    It seems like a Bull-Crap reason. I think that the tax revenue is the biggest motivator as well. However you would think that they could do the same to some magazines such as High-Times and others for promoting illegal activity.
     
  18. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
    You would think so wouldn't you? But, since the govt does collect taxes on the sales and profits of High times (and no one is squawking real loud about it), they don't have much af a problem with it.

    Freedom isn't free.
     
  19. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    The Washington state prohibition on internet gambling has nothing to do with helping compulsive gamblers, or with dealing with an unregulated industry. Washington state *has* legalized gambling, which has always been the case. The meat of the issue is how the state collects its revenue. When people gamble in our local casinos a large portion of that money ends up in the state's accounts. When a person gambles online that money evaporates.

    Please remember that this article DID NOT state that the magazine was "banned" in the state. It said that the publishers *chose* not to distribute their rags here. That is a world of difference.
     
  20. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,986
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    While it's understandable that the insatiable maw of the Washington State Tax Grabber isn't satisfied by online gambling, it's still a First Amendment issue.

    Robert Hairless' examples show that this sort of "inconvenient" First Amendment has long bothered all manner of folks. A more recent example is that of the Campaign Finance no-Reform law.

    The DEA has long tried to close down "High Times" magazine.

    But I gotta disagree with the inclusion of the cited Army officer. He's in the Army. In the Army, you don't smart off in public about a superior officer. He agreed to the UCMJ as a condition of service. Shame on him for being stupid.

    Art
     
  21. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    True but the reason they withdrew was...

    Well that is what vexes me.
     
  22. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    What vexes me, having read the full text of the bill, is where it states this.

    The bill very simply alters the existing state statute regarding gambling, and simply adds the internet to the list of ways in which it is illegal to make wagers. (it used to be include television, printing, telephones, telegpraphs etc., now it inculdes the internet as well).

    The issue here isnt wether or not the state can actually curtail the distrubution of a gambling magazine. Clearly *that* would be an invasion of free speach. The question here is wether or not THIS HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. All information at present would indicate that it hasnt. The article, and the magazine publishers have stated that they HAVE NOT been prohibited from distributing their magazines, and none of the changes to the law would indicate that such distribution has been made illegal.

    My question is: Has anyone actually and verifiably had their freedom of speech in any way infringed by this bill? Yes or no, cite your source.
     
  23. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    We won't have any proof until election season that they've violated our rights. Think about it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page