Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:33 AM) So phone calls or letters threatening physical violence are protected speech? Isn't there quite a bit of jurisprudence on this finding exactly the opposite? Again it goes back to assault and the reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. It depends on the situation. If it's an ex-spouse that has a history of abuse, then yeah, that's probably not protected. Some random girls on the internet being dumb b****es? I don't see it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:34 AM) Why does this threat become not-serious because of the medium it was made in? Because it negates the immediacy of the threat.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) But how could it be protected speech and still have the school suspend them for it? Seems like there's a disconnect there. EDIT: Though, I know there are limits on what you can say in school, if that's what you were going under. Might be covered by Morse v. Frederick (that "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case out of a Alaska from a few years ago). Yeah in the law schools have always been a different forum with different considerations. I don't know if it applies in Ohio, but some other states have adopted those anti-online bullying laws and I'd imagine they're written to allow school to act in concert with the authorities.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) Yeah I'm not sure where the right to threaten people with bodily harm supposedly comes from. This isn't some abstract threat or from some random person on the other side of the country, it's from a couple of girls in the same town. Over Facebook and Twitter.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) 1st amendment and threats are a tricky one. Im a huge 1st amendment person. That being said, should there really be protection for speech that is threatening violence/crime? For speech that's purpose is to intimidate others? I guess my belief is that it should be related to assault. That there has to be an actual ability to carry out the threat. This creates terrible interpretations obviously. But I dont think yelling at Lebron "Im going to murder you if you dont miss this free throw" at a game should be actionable. I do think threatening Lebron and saying that if he shows up at the game you are going to do something bad to him, could be actionable. As you know, the problem is who gets to decide this? And what other problems does that create?

IMO what these chicks did, while abhorrent, should never the less be protected. Generally the rule of law is that unless the speech is going to lead to immediate action it's protected. The victim might have had a case for assault if she really felt threatened by it, but that requires some level of immediacy. I can't threaten you and then 2 weeks later claim that I was assaulted. They were threats over Facebook and Twitter. People have said worse things. They're physically not anywhere near each other so that immediacy concern is gone. Arresting these girls is a bit much IMO. Perhaps the school could have suspended them. That seems more appropriate.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013...io-rape-victim/ Threats over facebook are arrestable offenses? Really? Well sorry Mr. Prosecutor. That pesky Freedom of Speech got in the way. (and yes, I know that some states have those online intimidation/threat laws and I think they're a travesty to free speech rights).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) No, they don't. Remember how I already linked you to one story about that? There's many others about people who were born in areas and eras before BC's and hospital records were widespread and well-kept and who simply cannot ever obtain that information. Maybe in a few decades it wouldn't be an issue, but there's still other concerns as well. OMG. So make a f***ing exception. Jesus.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) I just always wonder why people believe that either party wants a fair fight. They both want a fight where the odds are stacked in their favor. Hey I agree. But i'm not the one pretending like one side is fighting for the little guy while the other party is only doing it for sinister purposes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:03 PM) No, we don't. You're simply assuming that we do. If this was a real problem, it would manifest in the voting data. It doesn't. Think about how hard this scheme would be to pull off. You need to know who's registered in a given precinct. You need to know they won't show up. You need to send an individual for every vote you're going to fraudulently cast. You need dozens to thousands (depending on the scale of the particular election local/state-wide) of people to keep quite, to never say a word about this scheme. Now compare that with absentee ballot fraud, something Republicans seem oddly quiet about. Compare it to good ol' ballot box stuffing or electronic manipulation. Why would anyone go through the hassle and risk of in-person fraud on any meaningful level? I just f***ing linked to a site where 3-4 people were charged!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:59 PM) I'll note that you're never able to actually present an argument or any evidence whatsoever on this topic and just fall back to some dumb knee-jerk "you're calling me a racist" line. I'm sorry that my "bleeding heart" for "letting people vote" is too much. I'm sorry that you can't accept that there's no evidence-based support for these laws pushed by Republicans that just happen to significantly disenfranchise their political opponents' voters. I'm sorry that you can't discuss an issue with a racial aspect without immediately concluding that you, personally, are being called a racist or that anyone is even being called a racist (they're not, at least by me). I'm sorry that you seem to lack empathy for people in situations that you haven't been through, that you seem to not give one s*** about actual people losing their ability to vote in an effort to stop a non-existent problem. I could like you to various amicus briefs filed in the cases over these laws that document this disenfranchisement and the lack of actual in-person voter fraud, but you've already told me you simply don't care. It doesn't seem to matter that there's no evidence for this being a real problem, you've simply assumed a priori that it's real. It doesn't seem to matter that people actually are disenfranchised, you've assumed a priori that they really aren't and, even if they are, f*** 'em. Your entire argument relies upon the fact that there is no evidence that this type of voter fraud happens, but you refuse to acknowledge that it's incredibly difficult to go out and find that evidence given the way the system is set up. Occasionally when an idiot trips up and gets caught, it's proof that it happens, but that's few and far between because the government and the party's don't have the manpower or the means to catch people. It's like arguing that people never go over the speed limit when you have 5 cops patrolling the entire state. The lack of evidence isn't proof that it doesn't happen.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) It is a considerable escalation to go from pieces of paper with my name and information, to something that has my actual picture and can be easily used to track me down for voting against the party in power. Its great that you are concerned about voter fraud, but my concerns are about govt abusing power. Seeing as that there are historically far more examples of govts using information as a way to control people, I am going to argue against that, until its proven that voter fraud presents a greater risk. We all know where this goes. Ids, approved, but then the argument is that people are making fake ids. Well only 1 way to solve that, we have to put tracking devices in the ids, that way we can make sure that the person is who they say they are and we can make sure they are coming from the same place. And so on and so forth. We must remain vigilant against the expansion of govt power or else one day the people will have nothing left. Voter nonsense is nothing more than each party trying to get some sort of advantage. You wont stop that, no matter how many rules we make. But we can stop making rules, we can stop giving govt more and more power. Each person is entitled to their own opinion. I just find govt power more of an issue, then voter fraud, which to the best of my knowledge, is anecdotal and the evidence is flimsy at best. I don't get it. It's relatively simple. When you're born, you have get a certificate. By law, you're supposed to get an SS#. Those two things everyone has and they're free. Take that to a local post office/drivers license facility/courthouse, whatever. Use that document, get your picture taken and get an photo ID. Use that photo ID for various services including voting. 99.9% of the country already does this. Why is it that so difficult? You have to do more to do just about anything else in life. Why is voting so different? If voting was such a sacred right that can't be infringed even a little, then registration should be thrown out the window. Who cares why they have you register, if it affects someone's right to vote (as in, you CAN'T VOTE AT ALL UNLESS YOU REGISTER), then that should be abolished. If you can physically make it to the polling station, your vote counts. End of story.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:49 PM) Jenks, do you think in-person voter fraud has had any measurable impact on an election? What evidence do you have to support that claim? I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) Wait, I won't get evidence, but here's an example of it happening?? You won't get evidence because it doesn't really happen because in-person voter fraud is an incredibly risky and inefficient way to rig an election with more than a few dozen votes. There are, at most, a handful of cases every couple of years. Pro-ID respondents have repeatedly admitted this, courts have frequently found this. It's not a real problem, and if it was, it'd show up in election data. This is unquestionably true. Various Republicans have explicitly admitted it, and other voting disenfranchisement policies are clearly partisan-oriented, e.g. shifting polling times and locations to Republican areas in Ohio, changes that resulted in hours-long lines in Democratic areas in Florida. They're pretty blatant about it. Since in-person voter fraud isn't actually a real problem, the Democratic response is entirely legitimate: they want to keep voters enfranchised. Yes, they have a partisan interest in it, but they're also morally right. You could make the same argument in decades-past for racial voter enfranchisement (or "racial entitlements" as Scalia would call them), but one side would still clearly be right. Go read any of the numerous amicus briefs on these cases. GMAFB on your ignorance of real, documented cases of disenfranchisement that are only a quick Google search away. GMAFB on equating not wanting to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands if not millions of citizens with wanting to allow unlimited votes. LOL, hey man, why don't you link me to some more sites about how difficult it is to vote because someone can't find their SS card. Ugh, I'm done. Your bleeding heart is too much for me. Also remember the golden rule: if you're white, male and conservative, you hate the colored folk! It never fails!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) Well you have to have some requirements if you are going to base voting on where people live, have districts etc. Which is why registration is done by where you currently live. Not by what your drivers license states. Which is why drivers license requirement is nonsensical under the current rules of voting. But I guess some people just like more rules and more govt intervention. Not I. I don't know what you're talking about. I never limited it to a drivers' license. Get a photo ID. It achieves the same purpose.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) Because registering to vote is so that you are voting for the right ballots, as elections are based on where you live. Drivers license is unnecessary and superfulous. I hate govt in my life, I dont want to give them any unnecessary information. I find drivers license and more information about me to be completely unnecessary. The govt does not need it to prevent voter fraud. Drivers license is not required of all adults in the US, therefore its unnecessary and irrelevant. If you love big govt and you want to give govt more personal information, that is your call. But I dont. I dont like the govt. Society evolves, I dont want society to devolve. Anonymity is important. I fail to see how offering up an ID is "government in your life" anymore than having a social security card or a birth certificate or whatever. It's simply providing evidence that you are who you say you are and not someone else. You don't need a driver's license. Get a regular state-issued photo ID. Something official with your mug on it so that an election judge can say "yep, that's you" instead of someone else.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) This still leaves many elderly people who lack the proper documentation in the lurch. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/us/polit...;pagewanted=all Lol, ugh. So again, why have any requirements at all? Some dumb person might have to deal with a "complicated" process. The horror!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Do you support a nationwide government-issued, government-required ID given to everyone at taxpayer expense? Sure, for those that legitimately can't afford it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) Probably because the impetus for these Voter ID Laws can be easily traced to efforts to disenfranchise voters for the other party and result in disenfranchisement that is many orders of magnitude greater* than the voter fraud problems they're trying to prevent. *this assumes incidents of voter fraud that would be prevented by ID laws are regularly non-zero, facts which are not in evidence. And we've been 'round this merry-go-round before: you won't ever get evidence of voter fraud because it's impossible to catch without someone being dumb enough to get caught. This isn't some make-em-up scenario, it happens: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11...es-in-november/ Let's be real here - this might be an effort from Republicans to keep certain people from voting (I don't buy that, but whatever, i'll play along) because it favors them, but the Democrat response is equally about KEEPING those votes because it favors them. None of this has anything to do with constitutional rights or some fight against disenfranchisement. You have to show an ID to early vote in Illinois. Where's the outcry? Oh yeah, there isn't any because it's not a big deal. And GMAFB on ID's being a prohibitive force. Registration is equally prohibitive. Let's get rid of that too. Hell, let's get rid of any effort to control voting. Let's make it a free-for-all. You love your candidate? Vote a million times if you want to, just like American Idol.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) Because voting is supposed to be anonymous so that our freedoms arent encroached. Kind of the entire reason why ballots are sealed. But I guess if that isnt a good reason anymore, we might as well just be able to vote online as long as we provide our SS number, and then they can just list our votes for everyone to see. That will end voter fraud, if I can check my vote make sure its right and make sure no one else voted under my name. But then again, we value privacy/secrecy. Guess it just depends on how much you want big brother in your life. Anonymous? You have to register to vote. How is that any different? Btw, I have to spend [insert price of a stamp because I honestly don't know these days] in order to register. Rabble, rabble! Disenfranchisement! Bunch of raycists! Infringing on my rights! Rabble, rabble!

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) TBH, I'm not sure I would like it changed. I very rarely see that play, and I'm fine with that. I agree. But it should result in a phone call from the Commissioners office reminding the officials that spectacular plays trump technical rules if it's a close call.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) Scalia continues his campaign to remembered as the worst Justice of the modern era, lending credence to imaginary voter fraud while rejecting documented voter disenfranchisement: https://prospect.org/article/arizona-versus-right-vote It's asinine that in this country you have to produce a photo ID to enter certain buildings, but it's a god damn riot when people ask for photo ID's to be shown while voting.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) When his hand hits the ball, some of the ball is definitely over the rim and over the opening itself. There's no question it would have hit the side of the rim but I don't think it had any chance of actually going in. I know by the letter of the rule that's still interference, but it's a dumb rule. If the ball had bounced off the rim, was still on "top" of the rim and moving outward, they allow guys to dunk those balls or tip them in all the time. But having watched the NBA for decades now, we all know the NBA could give a s*** about the rules until it suits them. Just about everyone travels but so long as the dunk/lay-up is made at the end they don't care.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) Would anyone expect impartiality out of Dickie V. if he was talking about what he saw in Duke practices? He was pimping Duke the entire selection show. It was embarrassing.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) They blew not reviewing/making the original call on Denver's basket. But from the way I understand the rule, and looking at when Noah touched it - the ball was easily in the cylinder - it was the right call. Either way I'd still rather have reviews than whatever happens, happens. Imagine the NFL right now without reviews. Yikes. The problem is that rule is a bunch of crap. Blake Griffin and Lebron and a million other guys get a ton of alley oops right near the rim and they never get called for it. Had Noah grabbed that ball and dunked it, they would have won the game. The other problem is that they initially called it a basket, meaning they shouldn't have reviewed it. It should have been a non-reviewable call, bucket good, Bulls win. Really though the Bulls have themselves to blame and they were lucky to get to OT. Their defense last night (and for several weeks now) has been turrible.