news The world as we know it is about to end
news Witnesses See 40 UFOs Over a Beach in the UK
news Mysterious and Chilling Photographs of Unidentified People
news Canada's Best-Documented UFO Encounter Celebrates Its 50th
news California Broadcast Interrupted With Ominous Announcement
news Mystery of sonic weapon attacks at US embassy in Cuba deepens
news Is the US Navy Trying to Catch UFOs?
news No, We Can't Control Hurricanes from Space
news This Guy Has Been Tirelessly Documenting the Ghost in His Apartment
news Earth May Be Under Surveillance by Nine Alien Civilizations
news CIA informant claimed Hitler survived WWII

Password: or Register
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Bill would ban protesters from using face masks
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 411518
03-21-2017 03:47 PM


Post: #31
RE: Bill would ban protesters from using face masks
Does anyone get the feeling that anyone supporting the police state now is a paid NSA shill?

Dancing Upon a Silvery Beam of Light
User ID: 397281
03-21-2017 04:32 PM

Posts: 4,640

Post: #32
RE: Bill would ban protesters from using face masks
Damrod  Wrote: (03-21-2017 03:36 PM)
I've got mixed thoughts on this.

As someone said above, anonymity is not part of your free speech rights. if you want to fundamentally change the country, you need to show your face so that those of us that disagree with you can recognize you.

There are lots of reasons to not allow masks...namely for identifying criminals...which is what antifa is. Violent weaklings only empowered to act like douchebags because they have masks on.

I'm not a fan of more state control...but in this case....f*ck the treasonous little want to change the world your face and own it...cowards

Bullshit! It most certainly is one of your free speech rights. Ever hear of Pen names and pseudonyms? Ever hear of Publius? You know the Founding Fathers' collective Pen name that wrote The Federalist Papers? Ever hear of the Sons of Liberty? Also our Founding Fathers that wore Indian costumes and cover of darkness to dump tea (destruction of property) into Boston Harbor. Our country was founded on anonymity!

Furthermore there is legal precedent covering anonymity in highly protected political speech and just regular speech even. It could even be said to fall under our basic right to privacy enshrined in our BoR (i.e. Fourth Amendment):
In ACLU v. Miller, the American Civil Liberties Union got an injunction against the enforcement of a Georgia statute that prohibited a person from falsely identifying herself while sending e-mail, posting on the Internet, and more (one of the problems with the statute was that it was too vague). The court ruled it was appropriate to give an injunction, among other reasons, when there was the potential for chilling free expression. The court agreed with the state that its purpose in enacting the statute--preventing fraud--was a compelling state interest, but decided against the state because the statute was not narrowly-enough tailored to its purpose.
The Superior Court permitted discovery of Doe's identity under the good faith standard. This good faith standard was famously applied in In re Subpoena to AOL,[1] where the court concluded that anonymous identities should be revealed only if:
The court is satisfied with pleadings and evidence
The party bringing suit or subpoena had legitimate, good faith basis for actions
The identity information is central to the claim
The Delaware Supreme Court disagreed with this standard. The court rejected the good faith standard due to the danger of bringing suit simply to reveal identity without any intention of pursuing the defamation action to a final decision. This, the court concluded, would have a chilling effect on free speech on the internet in contradiction to the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court then turned to Ramunno v. Cawley [4] as an example of the motion to dismiss standard being applied to a similar case. The court used Ramunno as an example of a motion to dismiss standard failing to screen "silly or trivial defamation suits."

That court then laid out a more stringent four pronged test instead.
Right to Privacy and Anonymity

McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d. 426 (1995): The Supreme Court struck down a state law banning distribution of anonymous campaign literature, emphasizing the long tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous political and literary speech and recognizing the right to exercise First Amendment rights anonymously as an "honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent."

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 411518
03-21-2017 04:41 PM


Post: #33
RE: Bill would ban protesters from using face masks
Free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates the speech that we hate.

Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication