Posted on 12/23/2017 1:07:44 PM PST by iowamark
Then you would be OK with her releasing the names of soldiers killed in Afghanistan before the military had a chance to contact their family members?
While Freedom of Speech is free, it comes with responsibilities...........
In = Even
*Extracted=exacted.
Thanks SaveFerris!
> who accuse her of publishing information before it’s publicly available
A bit of a contradiction.
;)
I’m the king of typos - especially with my $3.99 keyboard - it’s got a lot of problems but I can’t bring myself to get the new one out of the box. I have to use things until they completely wear out. It’s what men do - lol.
“””So if your loved one were killed, you are saying you have no problem learning about it on the news? Since death notifications by police are probably the most dreaded task they claim to have to do, I’m sure they will be glad to no longer care about having to do that task.”””
in a very real sense what difference does it make? Is the news of your loved on death easier to take just because it comes from a cop?
How about the opposite? Do cops have the right to NOT tell you about a loved one’s death?
As with everything else in the Federal or a State Constitution, it only applies if I agree with it.
14th amendment changed that. The first amendment does apply.
In no way should she be arrested.
Little bit of Texas fascism. Texans need to elect pro-2nd amendment, Constitutional sheriffs in their counties who can swing the hammer down hard on fascist city cops and police chiefs. Sheriffs have the legal and armed muscle to protect citizens.
I have a constitutional sheriff in my county. He’s run two police chiefs out the county who were abusing citizen’s constitutional rights.
Do cops have the right to NOT tell you about a loved one’s death?
What does that even mean? Why is it the cops responsibility if the announcement is going to be made in the news?
Throw in a few cats and we may have something here...
Meat hooks for Tyrants.
“Telling the world that someone has died tragically before being sure that the family has been informed is one of those things.”
Agreed that I wish more compassion had been considered. This situation is something that also happens quite frequently with celebrity deaths. It’s often a race to be the first to publish or even sell the first death scene photos. Or imagine an instance where its a live event covered by news, one may even witness a relative/friend killed or even worse, be left not knowing, as in the case of 9/11.
It is compassionate when we can be notified and prepared for bad news in a calm environment, however, the reality is there are never any guarantees as to how we learn of the death or injury of a loved one.
Even so if it did it would apply to any Congresses of the States, of which there are none — to assert that the First Amendment's incorporation against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment has any operable effect [against State legislatures] is to assert that the judiciary can alter at-will the Constitution completely apart from Constitutional Amendment.
You cannot be a Constitutionalist and espouse the doctrine of incorporation as practiced by our Judiciary. Period.
(Or would you assert that the servant is greater than the master, that the commissioned is greater than the commissioner? For that is what you are endorsing when you allow the Judiciary to set itself up as superior even to the very authority which establishes it.)
This applies to Congress, as is evident from the very beginning.
And the congress can’t abridge those freedoms. As the states have purview over anything not spelled out in the constitution, they can’t take away those freedoms spelled out in the constitution.... as in the amendments.
The freedoms of the First Amendment are from Federal Government doing certain things (remember All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
[Art 1, Sec 1]) so by prohibiting enacting various laws to Congress the First Amendment prohibits them from the entirity of the federal government — this comports with the preamble to the Bill of Rights which reads, in part: The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
.
Now, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that what is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is within the purview of the States or their people: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And so something like State laws against [e.g.] certain publications and press access may indeed be valid. However, in the case of Texas this is clearly not so, by their own Conctitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL.Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
That is, apparently, exactly how our Judiciary works. :(
I know that you believe you’re on solid 10th amendment ground here.
Try this with the 15th and see how it works. (Hint: it doesn’t)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.