Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged law

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    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...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    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).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    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?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    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
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Nov 14
     
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Nov 14
     
    Whats wrong with that.
  • michaelaheilesen on 10 Nov 14
     
    I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.
  • jchristensen043 on 10 Nov 14
     
    Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.
  • amcclain946 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.
  • fwyldes753 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.
  • pkleppe761 on 04 Dec 14
     
    Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.
  • djones036 on 04 Dec 14
     
    People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.
  • kschwindt on 04 Dec 14
     
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  • matuszeski on 04 Dec 14
     
    Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.
  • kquinlan591 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.
  • bllandon on 04 Dec 14
     
    I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.
  • John Scheffler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.
  • jjohnson749 on 04 Dec 14
     
    i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.
  • malr2528 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.
  • ravenmaine on 04 Dec 14
     
    To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.
  • justin988 on 04 Dec 14
     
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  • mhart079 on 04 Dec 14
     
    To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.
  • Erin Wolff on 05 Dec 14
     
    I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.
  • brooklynschroede on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.
  • tcomulada881 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.
  • chrislindqvist on 05 Dec 14
     
    This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • davyana on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.
  • justin988 on 09 Dec 14
     
    his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • estuckey767 on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.
  • deanaroth on 10 Dec 14
     
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  • jordan fichter on 12 Dec 14
     
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
Mallory Huggins

Hobby Lobby: The First Martyr Under Obamacare? - 0 views

blog.christianitytoday.com/...st-martyr-under-obamacare.html

shared by Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.
Bryan Pregon

Mississippi bans abortions at 15 weeks - CNN - 19 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18
     
    "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...
  • taylorknickerson on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • chaseburns on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • Connor McHood on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • Haley Costello on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • pfrederiksen on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • sydmccorkle on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • jakesimons on 31 Aug 18
     
    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?
  • ehoodmuffin on 26 Sep 18
     
    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.
  • Brooke Wohlers on 26 Sep 18
     
    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.
  • rochsam on 26 Sep 18
     
    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
  • camrynkinser on 26 Sep 18
     
    i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks
  • kojelly on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel that is still too late.
  • bret758 on 06 Dec 18
     
    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.
Bryan Pregon

Branstad signs laws restricting wages, workers' compensation - 2 views

www.wowt.com/...rs-compensation-417730593.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 31 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 31 Mar 17
     
    "Gov. Terry Branstad has signed into law a ban on local governments raising the minimum hourly wage and another law changing Iowa's workers' compensation system."
  • rwilladsen586 on 04 Apr 17
     
    I think it was reasonable for Gov. Terry Branstad to place a law on banning minimum wage increase. We have a good minimum wage that meets the circumstances of living in iowa. It's not nearly as expensive as other big cities like Chicago or San Diego. I also think it was good he took into account the workers' compensation.
Bryan Pregon

Justice Department challenges North Carolina transgender law - CNN.com - 3 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 May 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 May 16
     
    "The Justice Department has sent a letter to the North Carolina governor and state university system leaders notifying them that the state's transgender law violates the U.S. Civil Rights Act, according to a Justice Department official."
  • calebsnead on 05 May 16
     
    North Carolina has set a new transgender law that prohibits people from entering a bathroom that is different from their biological sex. The Justice Department is challenging this law and how it goes with our nations rights.
anthony158

Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage - 17 views

www.nytimes.com/...m-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

shared by anthony158 on 14 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • anthony158 on 14 Sep 15
     
    ASHLAND, Ky. - A Kentucky county clerk who has become a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage was jailed Thursday after defying a federal court order to issue licenses to gay couples.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Julia Gibler on 15 Sep 15
     
    When the law was passed for gay marriage in the U.S. she should have gotten a new job or something. It is her job to give people marriage licenses. It is outrageous that she would refuse and its not fair to those couples.
  • tiaross on 17 Sep 15
     
    That law was passed for a reason. If she doesn't agree with it then she should get a different job.
  • nicksevey on 17 Sep 15
     
    Regardless of your opinion on same sex marriage a law is a law and you must follow it. Especially if you are the one dealing with the law
  • kaylawalden on 17 Sep 15
     
    Some people have strong opinions over different things and that freedom to believe in what we want is our right, here in the United States. However, her belief clashes with her job so if her beliefs are really that important than she should have found a different job where they didn't conflict.
  • agreen910 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I understand the people have opinions the go against same sex marriage and that totally okay. She has the right to express her opinion but when it interferes with her job she cant discriminate. Now that same sex marriage is legal, I'm sure there are many people upset about it but they cant let that effect how they preform in the work space. Especially if you could go to jail over it.
  • marisademare on 17 Sep 15
     
    She had no right to do that, they were not braking a law. Also everyone has there own opinions on same-sex marriage, so if she had a problem with it then she should have kept it to herself, it is her job if she doesn't like it then she should find a new job.
  • jroberson300 on 21 Sep 15
     
    I think everyone is initiated to there own opinion on the subject. It is her job though so if she doesn't like it then she could always find a new one. I like how she is being civil about it though.
  • ryanlegg on 21 Sep 15
     
    same here, even though I feel that I feel this is wrong he made a choice, it won't change much though.
  • dalton-silv98 on 21 Sep 15
     
    good for her
  • sophiataylor001 on 21 Sep 15
     
    I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is your job. Depending on the job you get, some consequences for refusing to do your job can vary. As a government worker she had to face the consequences. However, I think she could have easily just found another job that wouldn't interfere with her views.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Good discussion on this topic so far!
Bryan Pregon

Kate's Law and the Problem With Mandatory-Sentencing Legislation - The Atlantic - 1 views

www.theatlantic.com/...403990

shared by Bryan Pregon on 05 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Nov 15
     
    "In July, a group of legislators introduced the Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015, popularly known as Kate's Law. On Wednesday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that Kate's Law would expand the federal prison population by over 57,000 prisoners, according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit organization that supporters sentencing reform."
Bryan Pregon

Why Donald Trump Blinked on Guns | Time - 30 views

time.com/...donald-trump-gun-proposals

shared by Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18
     
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • levihardiman on 13 Mar 18
     
    My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,
  • saratruong on 13 Mar 18
     
    I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.
  • jacklancers71 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen
  • tylerrardin on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.
  • dthomas713 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.
  • ghannan137 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.
  • sarahj046 on 13 Mar 18
     
    agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 13 Mar 18
     
    This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.
  • esorenson on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about
  • aasmus466 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change
  • chaseburns on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.
  • molson133 on 13 Mar 18
     
    When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.
  • majesticdragon1 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel maybe they should be more strict on guns and the background checks be more thorough. just wondering why 21 for semiauto pistols but 18 for fully auto AR's. It should be the other way around.
  • cceder858 on 13 Mar 18
     
    its yesterday news because after the shooting we been talking about to raise the age in assault rifle as in the last couple of weeks so this shooting gave a heads up about school safety and the age to buy assault rifles.
Bryan Pregon

SCOTUS nixes part of law requiring deportation of immigrants convicted of some crimes -... - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 17 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 17 Apr 18
     
    "The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some "crimes of violence," holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague."
Bryan Pregon

Michigan medical marijuana seller gets prison: 'Federal law has not changed,' judge say... - 1 views

www.mlive.com/...as-not-changed-judge-says.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 01 Feb 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 01 Feb 20
     
    ""States are changing marijuana laws across the country, certainly that's true, but federal law has not changed," U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney said."
Bryan Pregon

Advocates sound alarm as restrictive voting laws pile up | TheHill - 7 views

thehill.com/...estrictive-voting-laws-pile-up

shared by Bryan Pregon on 08 May 21 - No Cached
  • saraivargas on 10 May 21
     
    People are trying to restrict voting rights, while other's are trying their hardest to expand them. States have already started to ban the bill that would expand on those rights and it's honestly sad.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 14 May 21
     
    The article discusses how states are trying to implement restrictive voting laws. I understand that after the 2020 election, there is a lot of suspicion surrounding voting fund. However, I think we should ensure that these new voting laws aren't another way to discourage people from voting. The article claims that voting fraud is "exceedingly rare," so it's clear that some legislators want to stop certain groups of people from voting to fit their needs, which is very wrong.
  • jdogan on 17 May 21
     
    voting restriction is the largest enemy of democracy and the fabricated campaign of voter fraud being an issue is terrible to go and say that with less than 2000 confirmed fraud cases in the last 40+ years there is a problem and that who can vote needs to be restricted is absurd this is no different than post civil war voting laws like a literacy test and the grandfather clause and the arguments supporting them are no different either
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Funny how the same people who say all lives matter are the people trying to restrict people's voting rights. I thought we were all equal??
  • allisonwalker on 24 May 21
     
    I feel like we shouldn't people's right to vote, it's a right that should be left alone.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think they should restrict the voting laws, it's fine as it is.
Bryan Pregon

Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th Amendment - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic - 2 views

www.theatlantic.com/...266498

amendment congress Government

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Dec 12
     
    a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 21 Dec 12
     
    Personally I believe that the NDAA for 2012 should never have been signed. I also think that it is a little late to try and fix this because people in Congress have already agreed that they want to permanently detain American citizens without trial and now are just trying to save face by "opposing" it. After all the author of that amendment, Senator Feinstein, voted for the NDAA for 2012. What really confuses, and kind of angers me, is that Obama said when he signed the NDAA for 2012 he didn't want that part in the law but he was signing it anyway (I don't have a quote but I'll find one). Now he is trying to defend indefinite detention of citizens in court after a federal judge found it unconstitutional. Another interesting article about this is this one. It shows that even people who generally would work together disagree about this bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html
Bryan Pregon

Alabama death row inmate Vernon Madison gets reprieve - CNN - 5 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 26 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Jan 18
     
    "Given Alabama's rejection of judicial override, the death sentence in this case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates Mr. Madison's rights to a jury, fair and reliable sentencing and to due process and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Alabama law," they wrote in their petition."
  • kegner573 on 30 Jan 18
     
    I understand that Madison has become mentally ill and doesn't have memory of the crime he committed, but he still committed the crime and was sentenced to the death penalty at first. However, due to an Alabama law no longer allowing the death penalty I think life without parole would be a good alternative for him.
  • mborgaila831 on 30 Jan 18
     
    "Mr. Madison suffers from vascular dementia as a result of multiple serious strokes in the last several years, and no longer has a memory of the commission of the crime for which he is to be executed," How does this make the crimes he has committed go away?
Bryan Pregon

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

hosted.ap.org/...US_DRIVING_STONED

shared by Bryan Pregon on 19 Mar 12 - No Cached
  • garrettcollier on 19 Mar 12
     
    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...
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    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?
  • garrettcollier on 20 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • drake prazak on 20 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • garrettcollier on 21 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Brittney Russell on 21 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Captain Crunk on 21 Mar 12
     
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  • Jessica Lewis on 21 Mar 12
     
    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!
  • tyler woodruff on 21 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Jeff Reddish on 21 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Riley Barton on 22 Mar 12
     
    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.
  • Joel Grimm on 23 Mar 12
     
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
Victoria Holcomb

Mom is ticketed for letting her two year old son pee on the street - 0 views

video.msnbc.msn.com/...49019180

news

shared by Victoria Holcomb on 13 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • alex widick on 14 Sep 12
     
    you gota go you gota go
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 18 Sep 12
     
    That is crazy. I get that peeing on a street, is nasty... But it was a little kid, they can't hold it forever....
  • Katelyn Owen on 18 Sep 12
     
    I mean I would understand that if it was an older child to ticket her but it was a little boy and yeah it is gross but he's still little he didn't know better.
  • Charlene Zimmerman on 18 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Eric, except for the fact that she could have found a place to go in for her son to go to the bathroom. The police should have been a little bit more understanding with the age of the child.
  • Jake Warnke on 18 Sep 12
     
    wow..... i agree with eric
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    It doesn't matter if you're 2 or 20 it violates the law. Its called indecent exposure and it violates the law.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Cameron. If I was walking on the street I definitely wouldn't want to see that no matter who it was. She could have taken her son into a near by business and asked to use their restroom.
  • Hope Philbrick on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Charlie I think the police overreacted
  • dalton schaaf on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with charlie also. I think that the mom should have been warned instead of given a ticket.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex a parent is suppose to teach their child healthy things to do and to pee in places where you shouldn't isn't a healthy thing to do.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    Wow, just wow. I bluntly support the mother in this situation. First, it may be against the law, but can you hold a 2 year old accountable for understanding every law? Those that will say, the mother should have stopped him, it's either, in the grass in his pants, and they were out, so should that kid have to walk around smelling like Urine all day, and probably contract some sort of rash from it? Second, the officer lectured the mother. Since when does anyone have any say as to how a parent raises her child? Every person they news crew interviewed agreed with her. So, obviously, the mother has quiet a bit of support. Third, a sanitation issue? Let's take a look at the average dog. The kid does this once, 50 dollar fine. I bet you can have any dog walker have there dog go, and they won't receive a 50 dollar fine. I know I am comparing a human child to a dog, but still, the kid is 2. Just like a dog going in public, he does not know any better. For everyone that calls that a sanitation issue, there is likely to have been at least 1 dog to have pee'd there as well, probably more. Lastly, indecent exposure. By definition, indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Let's go back to the dog reference. Since, by definition, this is not just applicable to humans, should every dog walker receive a 50 dollar fine every time they let there dog outside? Having 4 dogs, I would receive a 200 dollar ticket every 1-2 hours a day anyone in my house is home. Over a 24 hour period, I would probably receive about $3200 in fines. To add on, the term deliberate, as used in this form, would require the careful consideration of actions. This 2 year old did not consider anything other then probably, "I gotta go!!!" The definition of indecent exposure itself should override the tic
  • Kirstina Michl on 21 Sep 12
     
    For me personally, if I were a parent, I'd try to get my child to a bathroom, but that woman didn't deserve to be ticketed for that. If she were the one doing the peeing, I'd understand the ticket because she's an adult. But the little kid is only two, and knows nothing about indecency or sexuality or all that. (Or, at least, I hope he doesn't . . .) But it's also like Payton said about the whole dog deal. Dogs also know nothing about indecency. They obviously know about mating as they get older, but dogs aren't humans, so they don't know how to or not to be decent. And while the little kid is human, he obviously still knows nothing about either subject at that age; he hasn't lived long enough.
Bryan Pregon

Congress to Hold Hearing on Country's Clashing Marijuana Laws - US News and World Report - 0 views

www.usnews.com/...untrys-clashing-marijuana-laws

shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Aug 13 - No Cached
jefferyduncan liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Aug 13
     
    "Congress to Hold Hearing on Country's Clashing Marijuana Laws"
  • jefferyduncan on 28 Aug 13
     
    i think that soon every state in america will probably jump on the train of legalizing marijuana but i think with the legalization of weed will help with getting us out of debt but for people who smoke weed its going to be taxed very highly so if your going to try to go to dispensaries it will most likely cost you alot more than it would on the streets
scott9677

Iowa Bans Most Abortions As Governor Signs 'Heartbeat' Bill : The Two-Way : NPR - 21 views

www.npr.org/...-governor-signs-heartbeat-bill

shared by scott9677 on 31 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • audreyduffy on 26 Sep 18
     
    I am glad this law has been put in place. It still protects unborn life but makes exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency". I hope other states decide to put this law in place.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • luke_banta on 26 Sep 18
     
    I agree with Audrey, we should be able to protect unborn life, but also make an exception for if she was raped,or if it is an incest baby
  • Brooke Wohlers on 23 Oct 18
     
    I think this is a good decision to put this law into place because it allows exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency" but can still protect an unborn life.
  • erowland613 on 23 Oct 18
     
    I feel that the law is too restrictive because most women do not know they are pregnant and if you are 18 and have a kid then you might not be financially stable enough to take care of the child, then we have another kid not growing up with their parents or going into a foster care program.
  • scott9677 on 23 Oct 18
     
    I highly disagree with this. Women have the right to control what goes on with their bodies if they don't want to carry a child at all they shouldn't be made to do so. Just like if a women is married and doesn't want to have kids she should be able to get herself "fixed" she should be required to have two or more children before doing so or get approval from her spouse.
  • hayleigh35 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I feel this ban in unfair, as most women wouldn't know they are pregnant until it is too late. With this ban in place it eliminates the women's choice whether they want the child or not.
  • vclark366 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I agree with hayleigh35, most women can't even tell if they're pregnant by 6 weeks, so the bill really doesn't work in that sense, but I am glad that they put the exceptions of rape, incest or medical emergency. When they're raped, women don't get to choose whether they want to have a kid or not because it is forced upon them. In that case, they should be able to abort the child.
  • jhendrix813 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I disagree with this. These people are not going to care about them once they are born so why does it matter or effect them in any way?
  • pballer107 on 06 Dec 18
     
    i disagree because women should have a choice on what to do with that baby
  • bprice233 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I disagree with this. At 6 weeks there is a very slim chance of knowing whether you are pregnant or not. Many women have irregular periods and can be off by two weeks even. This can lead to people being unable to get abortions before they even know that they are pregnant. Even though this may make exceptions in the terms of "rape" it still is not an effective way or limit
sarahspidle

Aunt of 13 siblings allegedly held captive tried 'for years' to get in touch with the f... - 25 views

abcnews.go.com/...story

shared by sarahspidle on 17 Jan 18 - No Cached
  • nathanaelhale on 30 Jan 18
     
    I think that the law enforcement did the right thing and got these terrible people for what they did to those kids.
  • ...11 more comments...
  • bethanyfoley on 30 Jan 18
     
    I agree that the law enforcement did do the right thing but I also think that it was good that the daughter did escape and called the police, or else they might not of gotten the help they needed in the first place.
  • creatures0ver on 30 Jan 18
     
    I heard about this all over the internet such as facebook, snapchat, etc... and i believe the law enforcement did the right thing and saved many lives that day.
  • nbushey395 on 30 Jan 18
     
    This is so very sad. I have been reading about this and in one article I read it said all the kids could keep a diary. They believe the parents could be faced with more charges.
  • jdofner419 on 30 Jan 18
     
    We talk about this story in ROTC. It's very sad, but even though how scared that girl must of been she did a great thing and saved her life, and her siblings life.
  • bschiller303 on 30 Jan 18
     
    This looks like something off of criminal minds, I watch it all the time and this is actually something that would happen on there. That's crazy people are so heartless
  • yazmin cabrera on 30 Jan 18
     
    This is very sad but they got the right punishment and glad everyone was safe!
  • sreynolds702 on 30 Jan 18
     
    I think this is repulsive and terrible however the authorities did do the right thing
  • kkermeen144 on 30 Jan 18
     
    This story is very sad and scary. But I would probably not love my sister after knowing that all this happened. Considering the fact that she never got to see her sisters children that she really badly wanted to see.
  • kegner573 on 07 Feb 18
     
    I think it is very strange how the sister didn't catch on to any of the strange actions that happened when she was there and that no one even questioned the fact that they were never allowed any further than the driveway with no contact with the kids for years.
  • lynx_2019 on 07 Feb 18
     
    I think the police did the right things but I don't understand how no one noticed the kids didn't come out of the house or didn't hear them.
  • lyricreed709 on 07 Feb 18
     
    They cops did the right thing but the sister shouldn't have been so oblivious.
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 18
     
    Bump
  • marrissa_842 on 12 Mar 18
     
    I believe that what the law did was the right thing, but however, the sister should've been more suspicious and paid closer attention to the signs or even try entering the house.
1 - 20 of 197 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page