Re: 'You thought /we/ worked for /you/? That's a good one.'
The only unexpected part is how blatant they are about it, but I suppose with an almost entirely gutless and spineless court system, it's not like they have to worry at all about someone calling them out on their actions.
Even if they got called out, what could happen? The DOJ is in charge of enforcement and they're sure not going to do anything about it. That's why they can act (or fail to act) with complete impunity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let the students decide
Right, fighting words isn't really related to hate speech, I think it was pretty much an aside from the esteemed Mr. Fenderson, but it caught my eye. I think there's common misunderstanding that the right to free speech is absolute in the US, but it isn't, and I agree the more people know about that the better.
The supreme court even ruled that "fighting words" are protected speech.
I know this is an oldish post but...
'In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."'
i will add this, it *USED* to be that you took the flag down at sunset (as a sign of 'respect', etc); BUT, since we are such lazy 'patriots' (*cough*cough*), that was so-o-o-o hard, so now everyone let's them fly 24/7/365...
The tradition is to EITHER take the flag down OR light it at night. It is by nature not obvious who is leaving unlit flags up at night. ;-)
The fact that she got to the point of calling out other parts of government for lies and underhanded dealings speaks volumes, and sets a precedent for the senate to actually hold some degree of a moral compass on the activities of other branches of government in the future.
It has nothing to do with a moral compass, it's because the CIA was caught spying on the Senate and not just ordinary citizens. She didn't say criticize any part of the intelligence apparatus until that happened.
True,but like all bureaucracies, they wish to build their power, and that means enabling more patents to be granted. Also, politicians use the number of patents granted as a measure of innovation in the economy, which again creates pressure to grant more patents.