abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're going to tell me what authority is. Lol.
welcome to arizona
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Well you want no authority around but life doesn't work that way. Humanity doesn't work that way.
Sometimes it feels like yes, you do need a reminder.
Sometimes it feels like yes, you do need a reminder.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Do you need authority around in order to refrain from fucking people over and hurting them and stealing their shit?
futant
Well-Known Member
Wandering off topic a bit and I apologize but is anyone else concerned that at the basis of a turing test is the ability to lie or deceive?
Once again Individual values begin with wonderful intentions but in turn can create system dynamics that evolve into beasts of thier own out of the control of their original makers.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
I don't. Many do.
For those that do, it helps protect me. Only helps.
Some do what they do regardless of the consequences. That's when I help myself.
For those that do, it helps protect me. Only helps.
Some do what they do regardless of the consequences. That's when I help myself.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You don't even believe in authority.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Yes I do. When I'm on the jobsite I'm the boss. I know precisely what authority is. I believe in it too.
Im a Texan, and like most of us Texas boys, I played football. We learn early about authority here.
Im a Texan, and like most of us Texas boys, I played football. We learn early about authority here.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
I do. Not the fucking them over, or stealing their shit, but the hurting them.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Authority is responsible for the vast majority of all violence.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
On a world wide stage, yes (wars, violence in countries with fascist governments) Here in Albuquerque, we've had a spate of law enforcement shootings. It pales in comparison to the number of stabbings, rapes, beatings, and shootings that have been done by private citizens in the past month by "citizens."
see4
Well-Known Member
That's a silly assertion. How does one watch a political agenda? Silly... I've been watching Faux Noise for 25+ years.
I'm sure some NSA agents enjoy this site. Just as much as they enjoy Twitter. I also bet that porn stars enjoy the site, should we abolish porn?
Yes, there is interpretation to your definition of public. Not sure why you quoted the first amendment, but regarding the point specifically to public trials, a grand jury, not of your peers in public. That is your choice. Secret trials do not exist.
Grand jury, not of your peers is still "public", which is why I asked for the definition of "public". Special trials are likely held for a reason, if these sort are being abused, attention and regulation is required. But that does not mean we abolish government, which is what we are talking about here.
Without it you have chaos.
For some, yes you do. That is why authority survives.
And thus authority. Rather, government.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
I don't argue against "authority" only the overreaching abuse of it.
I quoted the first because you said they have a right a right to free speech UNLESS it's inciting.
You assert that there are no secret trial, how can you claim that, when they are "authorized" by the PATRIOT act. Grand Juries should NOT be secret, but they are.
Just because Congress passed a law and makes it "legal" doesn't mean that something is "legal." Just because the Supreme Court says something passes constitutional muster doesn't mean that it is constitutional. That's the whole "creep" of tyranny.
I agree we need authority, but I don't agree that it should be secretive, spy on it's citizens, or hide it's intentions.
I quoted the first because you said they have a right a right to free speech UNLESS it's inciting.
You assert that there are no secret trial, how can you claim that, when they are "authorized" by the PATRIOT act. Grand Juries should NOT be secret, but they are.
Just because Congress passed a law and makes it "legal" doesn't mean that something is "legal." Just because the Supreme Court says something passes constitutional muster doesn't mean that it is constitutional. That's the whole "creep" of tyranny.
I agree we need authority, but I don't agree that it should be secretive, spy on it's citizens, or hide it's intentions.
see4
Well-Known Member
No. Free speech when inciting riots is not free speech, it is disobedience. Without that rule, you'd be dead.
How do you know secret trials exist? You don't, if they are secret. So you are just guessing.
Grand jury trials are not secret. In some criminal cases the defendant has the right to a jury of his/her peers or a grand jury. Both are public.
re: Patriot Act, yea well, I think that shit show needs to go away. I agree. Thank Boooosh for that.
I agree that we should not have authority spying on its citizens. But I do think we need spies. We need foreign intelligence.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
A grand jury is a group of people that are selected and sworn in by a court, just like jurors that are chosen to serve on a trial jury (such as the jury in the O.J. Simpson criminal case or in the Louise Woodward ("au pair") murder case). In fact, the grand jurors are usually chosen from the same pool of people that provide trial jurors: A judge selects and swears in a grand jury, just like judges select and swear in trial juries. But grand juries differ from trial juries in several ways.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
A grand jury does not find innocence or guilt. A grand jury looks at the evidence and decides if a person should go to trial or not.
Sometimes a grand jury will want to indict and the prosecutor will decide not to press charges, anyway. (Jean Benet Ramsey)
see4
Well-Known Member
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes the right of the accused to a public trial.
The right to a public trial is strictly enforced, but is not absolute. Trials may in exceptional cases be regulated. Closures are decided case-by-case by the judge evaluating a claimed danger to a substantial or legitimate public interest. But whatever the interest at stake, the likelihood of danger to that interest must meet a "‘substantial probability’ test".[SUP][1][/SUP] Examples of cases presenting closure issues include organized crime cases (overall security concerns), rape cases (decency concerns), juvenile cases,[SUP][2][/SUP] and through the Silent witness rule and/or Classified Information Procedures Act, cases involving sensitive or 'classified' information.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Trials may be closed at the behest of the government only if it can show "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest".[SUP][4][/SUP] The accused may also request a closure of the trial; in such a case, it must be demonstrated that "first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights".
But before a judge can close a courtroom, the judge must consider all potential alternatives to closure. This is a very strict standard; the Supreme Court has held that "trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties," or by anyone else.[SUP][5][/SUP] In other words, a judge who does not want to be reversed on appeal must be confident that there cannot possibly be any alternative to closure that might later be conjured up by some appellate lawyer.
The right to a public trial is strictly enforced, but is not absolute. Trials may in exceptional cases be regulated. Closures are decided case-by-case by the judge evaluating a claimed danger to a substantial or legitimate public interest. But whatever the interest at stake, the likelihood of danger to that interest must meet a "‘substantial probability’ test".[SUP][1][/SUP] Examples of cases presenting closure issues include organized crime cases (overall security concerns), rape cases (decency concerns), juvenile cases,[SUP][2][/SUP] and through the Silent witness rule and/or Classified Information Procedures Act, cases involving sensitive or 'classified' information.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Trials may be closed at the behest of the government only if it can show "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest".[SUP][4][/SUP] The accused may also request a closure of the trial; in such a case, it must be demonstrated that "first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent, and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights".
But before a judge can close a courtroom, the judge must consider all potential alternatives to closure. This is a very strict standard; the Supreme Court has held that "trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties," or by anyone else.[SUP][5][/SUP] In other words, a judge who does not want to be reversed on appeal must be confident that there cannot possibly be any alternative to closure that might later be conjured up by some appellate lawyer.
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
A grand jury isn't a trial.
A grand jury simply decides, given the evidence presented by the prosecutor, whether or not charges should be brought. And, grand jury proceedings are private, or "secret" aka "non-public."
And, riotous speech is STILL PROTECTED SPEECH! Just like speech against the President and other politicians is "protected speech" BY THE CONSTITUTION. It doesn't say anything about "except riotous speech" or "inciting speech."
minnesmoker
Well-Known Member
I don't care about ANY citation EXCEPT the CONSTITUTION. I don't give 2 shits about whether a court has decided that things should be private, or laws have been passed to hide court proceedings. Any court proceeding that uses ANY of those laws is unconstitutional, and ANY PERSON, no matter how horrible the crimes they've committed, is an unlawfully detained citizen, when those rules abridging their right to publicly confront their accuser, or witnesses against them, is used. They are an illegally detained citizen.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I played basketball, so I am an authority on round things or nets? I'm confused.