Author Topic: Sliced from "Censoring" in Site Discussion (Read 7100 times)

WarpRattler · « **on:** February 27, 2011, 09:00:32 AM »

Quote from: PaperLuigi on February 27, 2011, 02:26:59 AM

Offensiveness isn't grounds for legal coercion

Yes, it is.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:17:04 PM »

That's debatable.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:27:14 PM »

Quote from: WarpRattler on February 27, 2011, 09:00:32 AM

Yes, it is.

I meant "It shouldn't be."

That's like using the Defense of Marriage Act as an excuse for keeping gay marriage banned.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:29:48 PM »

I think as far as TMK discussions go, homosexuality is the new Hitler.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:47:46 PM »

Quote from: Turtlekid1 on February 27, 2011, 12:17:04 PM

That's debatable.

I don't like originalism. Our right to privacy wouldn't exist under originalism. Just saying. That was guaranteed by Griswold v. Connecticut. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. It was established by interpreting the Fourth and Third Amendments, but you'd never be able to reach that decision as a literalist.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:57:07 PM »

Except the Founders wanted privacy, which was their motive for adding the Fourth Amendment. If we subscribe to Original Intent, then of course we're going to see a Right to Privacy in the text, because it was supposed to be seen there.

Anyway, my link was mostly an argument against the idea that the Supreme Court needs all these tests and standards of their own invention to interpret law.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:18:14 PM »

Quote from: Turtlekid1 on February 27, 2011, 12:57:07 PM

Except the Founders wanted privacy, which was their motive for adding the Fourth Amendment. If we subscribe to Original Intent, then of course we're going to see a Right to Privacy in the text, because it was supposed to be seen there.

They wanted a right to privacy? Well, you wouldn't know that by just looking at the text. The Fourth Amendment just guards against unreasonable search and seizures.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:29:48 PM »

...because of the underlying belief that the government shouldn't be intruding on the people's privacy.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:46:15 PM »

What was their original intent regarding condom use?

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2011, 05:20:39 PM »

I can't imagine why they would need to put anything into the Constitution about condom use, since the the rape of the people by government that they were trying to prevent was figurative.

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2011, 08:58:28 PM »

Rapists don't use condoms.

Insane Steve · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2011, 09:54:13 PM »

I vote to split the last 15 posts or so into the Not at the Dinner Table board, except I can't do that myself.

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2011, 10:44:19 PM »

Quote from: Lizard Dude on February 27, 2011, 08:58:28 PM

Rapists don't use condoms.

Listen, just because you don't...

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:09:44 AM »

I am not a rapist.

Lizard Dude · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:12:33 AM »

I am not a rapist.