tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post1435362487076948328..comments2023-08-10T14:58:46.329+07:00Comments on Authority!: More First Amendment IgnoranceTimothy J Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-52125076606831171842012-04-04T17:35:18.604+07:002012-04-04T17:35:18.604+07:00Quote from kdf211: "... as long as you don...Quote from kdf211: "... as long as you don't hinder peoples movements or block access."<br /><br />Now there's a caveat that's easily abused.geoihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06228052543574335663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-80443389595838534312012-04-04T17:33:04.317+07:002012-04-04T17:33:04.317+07:00Quote from Timothy J Taylor: "It's all im...Quote from Timothy J Taylor: "It's all imaginary pain and hurt feelings."<br /><br />It's only imaginary to you. To a religious believer, the damage is very real.<br /><br />It can be easily said that any pain and hurt feelings from restricting somebody's free speech is just as imaginary. How is anybody damaged by NOT allowing them to speak?geoihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06228052543574335663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-40420723732323813472012-04-04T17:02:54.584+07:002012-04-04T17:02:54.584+07:00Such agreements are unenorceable in a court of law...Such agreements are unenorceable in a court of law , in my opinion, under the First Amemndment. Would an order not to pray with the kids be enforceable? <br /><br />And what is the damage here to the father that his kids were baptized? How were the kids damaged? The court? It's all imaginary pain and hurt feelings.<br /><br />These kids are just being used as pawns in a divorce war. It's a common as dust in divorces.Timothy J Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10634355920003282809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-75297863740657169292012-04-04T06:49:02.693+07:002012-04-04T06:49:02.693+07:00Actually kfd211, you and the owner of the blog are...Actually kfd211, you and the owner of the blog are missing the point. <br /><br />The parents entered into an agreement during the divorce called a "Marital Dissolution Agreement," (MDA.)<br /><br />The MDA is a legal court order. In that court order the parents agreed that major parenting decisions would be agreed to by both parents or a mutually acceptable mediator would be brought in to resolve the issue. The mother agreed to the MDA.<br /><br />She also admits the age of baptism is a "major parenting decision." <br /><br />Even with that, she had the kids baptized without the knowledge or consent of the father. <br /><br />The mother argued the civil fines against her should be dropped as the fines are designed to compel an action. As there was no "unringing" of the baptismal bell, civil fines would not have worked.<br /><br />However, the Court said that as she had violated a legally issued court order, she was subject to criminal contempt charges which are designed to punish for past actions.<br /><br />The court got this one right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-89226987942933243752012-04-03T20:43:18.780+07:002012-04-03T20:43:18.780+07:00I think you are missing the point. He is not sayin...I think you are missing the point. He is not saying it was right or wrong of the mother, thats between her and the ex. He is saying that it's none of the COURTS business.<br /><br />As far as the free speech, Other than on PRIVATE property when the owner asks you to leave(and then you can only be charged with tresspassing) You can preach to your hearts content any where you want to on public property as long as you don't hinder peoples movements or block access.. this is supported by SCOTUS. Therefor we are not subject to anyones whims. Many civil suits have been won against police and cities for arresting people excercising their 1st amendment rightskfd211https://www.blogger.com/profile/18225010028417582671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5313916164911265633.post-4172614665138991722012-04-02T17:59:45.101+07:002012-04-02T17:59:45.101+07:00I think you're marginalizing issues that some ...I think you're marginalizing issues that some people find very important, even if you don't. To some people, baptism is something more important than simply getting your hair wet. You may think it's all silly superstition, but we're not talking about your children.<br /><br />Preaching in public may not typically be something that a reasonable person should be arrested for, but it highlights one of the crucial issues between free speech and property. You may have the right to free speech, but there's still the question of where. You have no free speech right on my property, no matter what the Constitution says. <br /><br />So the real free speech issue only relates to free speech on 'public' property. Since it's 'public' property, then we're subject to the whims and prejudices of the bureaucrats and administrators of the state, whose decisions will most likely not please everybody (or anybody). <br /><br />As for posting crosses or mezuzahs, this was on private property and none of the state's business. I would guess that the rules of this property association have not changed recently and were in effect when this person moved in. I agree that it seems a little silly to allow one but not the other, but what happens when a resident wants to hang an animal skull, or a confederate flag, or something more disturbing on their porch? Injecting the state into such a dispute will most likely result in the same bad decisions as found in the public preaching incident.geoihhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06228052543574335663noreply@blogger.com