Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Constitution

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Bryan Pregon

Unprecedented and Unlawful: The NSA's "Upstream" Surveillance | Just Security - 4 views

  •  
    "First disclosed as part of the Snowden revelations, Upstream surveillance involves the NSA's bulk interception and searching of Americans' international Internet communications - including emails, chats, and web-browsing traffic"
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    The government is looking into all of our emails, letters and phone calls, the Constitution doesn't think that's very fair or right, that seem to not do that without good reason. The government explains how they do it, but not why they do it, well, only a little; to look for terrorists. Maybe the government does look too much into our mails and phone calls, what if there's something private, or not private but more people know about it than nessesary
  •  
    Supposedly the government is looking into private emails, and listening to phone calls to increase the security of the nation by monitoring things for terrorism. However this is the only insight given by the NSA. If it was just about terrorism that could be justifiable, but if the government is just looking through things to look for anything illegal, then the government is breaking the 4th amendment in which they do not have warrant, consent, or probable cause to look through your emails,
  •  
    I don't think the government should look into our private communications unless they have a lead on someone as a terrorist because there is a lot of innocent people who the government are looking at their private communications.
Bryan Pregon

Virginia Students Suspended After Protesting Confederate Flag Ban - NBC News - 22 views

  •  
    "More than 20 students at a southwestern Virginia high school were suspended Thursday after wearing clothing bearing the Confederate flag in protest of school policy."
  • ...22 more comments...
  •  
    I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.
  •  
    I agree with zayne
  •  
    I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate
  •  
    I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.
  •  
    I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.
  •  
    I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.
  •  
    I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag
  •  
    This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.
  •  
    I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it
  •  
    In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.
  •  
    These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned
  •  
    I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.
  •  
    i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.
  •  
    I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.
  •  
    They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.
  •  
    This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.
  •  
    They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.
  •  
    I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.
  •  
    I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.
  •  
    I do not agree with the school banning the flag.
  •  
    I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.
  •  
    Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.
  •  
    The students who are representing the flag may represent it for their own reason but if it offends other people because it's known widely for the racism coming from it in history.
  •  
    The flag was created to show the support for slavery, it was the face of the southern states, the reason they flew it high and proudly was to fight FOR slavery, not just to show pride. It was offensive then, it's offensive now.
Bryan Pregon

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

  •  
    This women is given a medical drug. When she drive's when she's is still high? So if she is getting medical weed and they make a law stating that you can not be "high" or drugged up before driving. Then why doesn't the government give them transportation, sure buses work if you live in the city, or taxi's. But why should she have to pay when the hospitals are giving it to her.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?
  •  
    Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.
  •  
    if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.
  •  
    Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.
  •  
    i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.
  •  
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  •  
    I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!
  •  
    i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.
  •  
    There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.
  •  
    I believe she should not be driving while under the influence. Even if she is prescribed the drug, there should be warnings and other precautions taken to prevent accidents.
  •  
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

  •  
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  •  
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  •  
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  •  
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  •  
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  •  
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  •  
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  •  
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  •  
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  •  
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  •  
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  •  
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  •  
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  •  
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  •  
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  •  
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  •  
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  •  
    Well said Jazmine.
Henry Black

The NDAA Debate: What It Means, and Why it Matters - NextGen Journal (Is this constitut... - 0 views

  •  
    Image Courtesy of westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com Amanda Fox-Rouch is currently a student pursuing an undergraduate political science degree at Hunter College in New York City. She is interested in the stories of those who are typically silenced by the selectivity of the mainstream media.
  •  
    "Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin would have probably opposed the parts of this law which the article explains.
Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

  •  
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  •  
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  •  
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  •  
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  •  
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  •  
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  •  
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  •  
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  •  
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
candyheyer

Federal Judge Strikes Down Alaska's Gay Marriage Ban - 0 views

  •  
    ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A federal judge has struck down Alaska's first-in-the-nation ban on gay marriages. U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess on Sunday said the ban violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection.
Bryan Pregon

Egypt student gets 3-year jail term for atheism - 18 views

  •  
    " "
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Reading this article makes me feel very grateful that I live in American where I can speak freely about whatever I want and believe in any religion I choose. It's sad that because some one has different beliefs than others, they are charged and put into jail.
  •  
    I think the kid shouldn't be put in jail for this because he is just expressing himself through his beliefs. I'm glad I live in a place where I can have my own thoughts. I can't imagine being put in jail for my view of religion.
  •  
    It honestly makes me cringe when I read that this student was put in jail for expressing himself through his own beliefs. I understand that it's against Egypt's constitution, but I think that they should be able to express their own beliefs....in every country! I'm thankful to live in America because I'm able to express my own beliefs and be apart of any religion I choose to be without being put in jail. I'm grateful.
  •  
    As an American, we know what freedom is. It is sad to see that other countries truly don't get the ooportunities that we do. It's sad that a child cannot ever truly express himself.
  •  
    Reading this makes me quite sad to be honest. And also makes me very grateful to live in a country where its founders believed that everyone should have a right to have whatever religion they wish. A 3 year jail sentence is used for more extreme things here in America, but in Egypt it is obviously a major offense.
  •  
    I think this is wrong in so many ways and I feel very happy that I live in a country where I can say,write and think what I want without getting in trouble with the government. These countries limiting the capacity of a human which makes them to almost robots
  •  
    I think this is wrong but I do think they should be able to express their religion
  •  
    They should be able to express their religion
  •  
    I think that people should be able to have their own beliefes and should not be forced to believe in something. I think making him go to jail is a bit exteme. This makes me gratful that I live in a country where I can express my beliefes and not be punished because they may be different than someone elses.
  •  
    I think it's awful that these people aren't able to express openly what religion they are and get put in jail when they do.
  •  
    They shouldn't of put him to jail for 3 years. I know they don't have the freedom to express their religions if they aren't the main religions but 3 years is way to long for something so small.
desertratt

The State Is Spying on You Right Now. Where's the Outrage? - 4 views

  •  
    Here is a short pop quiz: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress earlier this month about the parameters of the secret negotiations between the United States and Iran over nuclear weapons and economic sanctions, how did he know what the negotiators were considering?
Bryan Pregon

Mississippi bans abortions at 15 weeks - CNN - 19 views

  •  
    "With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    If you are not a woman, you should not have a say in what women can and cannot do with their body. This is an unconstitutional law and it greatly endangers women's health care all across Mississippi. Every day, women are raped and become impregnated, but many may not know they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. How does the Mississippi government expect that woman to carry out the pregnancy under the circumstances that had caused her to be pregnant in the first place? It is clear the Mississippi government has not fully taken every circumstance into consideration when creating this law.
  •  
    I think that the only constitutional ban we could put onto abortions is when the fetus can feel pain. At that point, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. Possible exemptions being if the women was raped, forced to have a child, or if having the child could hurt or kill the mother.
  •  
    I can see why people would want to ban abortions after a certain time frame, even though I disagree with where they put the cap. However, I really don't like how there's no exceptions for rape, and I especially hate how there's now exceptions for incest. Inbred children tend to be incredibly unhealthy, and if the mother doesn't want to carry them to term, they shouldn't be forced to.
  •  
    I agree that there should be a certain time frame for when you can have an abortion, but 15 weeks is to early to decide. I also think that if the mother doesn't want to her have the baby then she shouldn't be forced to, depending on what the reason is. Like if she was raped or could harm herself, then she shouldn't be forced to have the child, but say she just doesn't want to because she isn't ready then maybe she can think of others options like adoption because their are many people who can't have a baby that do want one.
  •  
    I agree that there should be a time frame but also I believe that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. There could be many different reasons for abortion like rape, self harm or just to young. But people should also think before they take action. I say this because people know what could happen when they have sexual intercourse. They know the consequences. But there are other options other then abortion, like adoption. There are plenty families that want kids but cant have them so instead of abortion they could end up helping a family.
  •  
    I agree with this law. 15 weeks is plenty of time for someone to decide if they would like a child in their life. People do make mistakes and rather than the child not having a good life they decide to not have the child.
  •  
    I would normally disagree with abortion, but I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. Someone could say the same thing about drug use. As long as you don't hurt anyone, it is okay. Why would someone try to control someone else's body/life?
  •  
    I feel as the argument over abortions comes down to if you consider the egg as living or not during early pregnancy. As abortions are the woman's choice this still gives them that opportunity to make that decision if it feels just, but after so long the egg does start to develop where then you could be ending a life. Then that is where they draw the line and are basically saying that it is past the point of being harmless, so I can agree with this bill.
  •  
    I agree that there should be some time frame for when you can and cannot have an abortion. 15 weeks to me seems like enough time for the women to decide if they want to keep the child or not. People do make mistakes. I think that it would be better to not have the child if its going to be born into a bad life. But I think that decision is ultimately up to the mother of the child.
  •  
    I think that its good that they made it 15 weeks because at that time the baby is still not too big and it gives the mother some type of time to make a decision
  •  
    i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks
  •  
    I feel that is still too late.
  •  
    i believe this is fair because in some states the law is 6 weeks and most women do not know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks. 15 weeks most women would know that they are pregnant and would have time to make a decision.
taylor138

Supreme Court decision is 'a constitutional coming out party' for social media - Jun. 1... - 1 views

  •  
    "On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders can't be broadly banned from using social media."
brandonwch

With COVID-19 Relief Passed, It's Time for Democrats to Destroy the Filibuster - 0 views

  •  
    With the Filibuster in place, nothing gets done. The Filibuster allows the minority of congress to block popular legislation. Ignoring the often unrepresentative nature of the congress, this is a serious problem that isn't even enshrined in the constitution. What are your thoughts on the Filibuster?
  •  
    I agree, an example of this would be the 15 Dollar minimum wage increase. 62% of Americans support the increase but since the filibuster is in place the minority Republicans will continuously block the bill.
jessicasolorio

Amy Coney Barrett: what will she mean for women's rights? | Law | The Guardian - 3 views

  •  
    I'm not surprised Trump decided Barrett was put for this spot. She's not preaching the same things Ginsburg did, Barrett's voice and privilege will not to justice for Ginsburg. That's honestly so disappointing.
  •  
    Barrett and Ginsburg are two totally different people and Trump had found that Barrett was best fit for this position. He has all of the power to do so and put whoever he feels has the best fit for this
  •  
    Ginsburg's voice and impact on America are tremendous and forever will be as is any Justice to hold the position of the supreme court. Barrett like any justice does her job serving the court, it shouldn't be a battle upon if one justice is better than the other or if Barrett taking the seat of Ginsburg was too soon or disrespectful when in reality the seat was going to be taken one of these days. Barretts did her job and although it might not be as impactful as Ginsburg she's doing what she was sworn in to do, serve the country and the constitution to its highest level.
Megan Funkhauser

Kansas teen won't apologize to governor's office for Twitter post - CNN.com - 26 views

  •  
    updated 1:49 AM EST, Mon November 28, 2011 (CNN) -- A high school senior, who faces a Monday morning deadline to apologize to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for a disparaging tweet, has said she will not write the apology letter.
  • ...18 more comments...
  •  
    Good story
  •  
    I wouldn't apologize either, i think she's doing the right thing.
  •  
    Personally, I don't think he should be forced to apologize. Yes, his comments were hurtful, but as a public political figure you have to expect these kinds of negative comments. Plus, like the last line of the article said "the governor of Kansas has more important thing to worry about."
  •  
    very intristing
  •  
    It wasn't meant for anybody but her friends, it was simply an accident. They shouldn't be so worried about it but she is right about freedom of speech. I wonder what's going to be done about it.
  •  
    I think she should at least apologize. Although free speech is an unalienable right, everyone should still share opinions in a respectful manner.
  •  
    Interesting story.
  •  
    I like the story, its very interesting that the governor took the twitter post from the teenager to heart and requires an apology letter to be productive and move on, he should be focused on more important things.
  •  
    Not gonna lie, I've seen far worse things on Twitter.
  •  
    I find this story very interesting, I do agree that we have freedom of speech. However lying is not in our Constitution. There are multiple worse things that are posted on Facebook, and Twitter.
  •  
    When it takes a apology letter is needed to work with the gov then they need some one new to take that office. If it was his own kid then it is understandable. but when he does not know them then they shouldn't bother him as much as they have. and it is true that twitter holds many things that are far worse that deal with the gov't.
  •  
    Lots of comments on this story... looks like the Governor ended up making the apology... here is a followup article http://goo.gl/0IlO1
  •  
    The girl was at no fault, even though she did not actually do the things she said in the tweet. Hundreds of millions of posts about politicians are posted every. If all of the politicians took the things said to heart the government would be in ever deeper trouble than they are now.
  •  
    She should be able to say what she wants. Freedom of speech
  •  
    yeah, she should have used her words more wisely, but freedom of speech is a very important law as long as it is not abused. I'm glad everything worked out, and the gov. corrected himself.
  •  
    that girl was a meanie bo-beanie
  •  
    She should have the freedom to voice her opinion however she wants
  •  
    Teenagers these days have no respect for adults and Authority.
  •  
    at least she was voicing her opinion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  •  
    she shouldn't even have to apologize for anything like freedom of expression so she has all right to post what ever she wants on twitter isn't that what it was made for to post things your thinking of or your opinion on something
‹ Previous 21 - 34 of 34
Showing 20 items per page