|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 08:31
A key word search of all U. S. district and federal circuit appeals
courts on Lexus-Nexus reveals hundreds of hits for "First Amendment"
or "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" when paired with the
following terms:
public nudity
KKK
gay
nazi parade
flag burning
Only six hits appear when the same First Amendment terms are paired
with "economic" or "employment" and looking up those opinions reveals
that the combination was purely coincidental in all 6 cases.
The First Amendment has never been invoked for free speech on economic
issues in an Art. III Court.
From the above a critical thinker could conclude,
a. Americans aren't interested in money,
b. WestGroup has a better search engine or data bank,
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| | 81 Comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 21, 2008 09:57
>A key word search of all U. S. district and federal circuit appeals
> courts on Lexus-Nexus reveals hundreds of hits for "First Amendment"
> or "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" when paired with the
> following terms:
>
> public nudity
>
> KKK
>
> gay
>
> nazi parade
>
> flag burning
>
> Only six hits appear when the same First Amendment terms are paired
> with "economic" or "employment" and looking up those opinions reveals
> that the combination was purely coincidental in all 6 cases. ...
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: BretCahillBretCahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 11:42
On Jun 21, 9:57�am, "Shrikeback" hotmail.com> wrote:
. . .
> d. A gigantic alien conspiracy
Violent hate filled NRA bigots are always coming up with conspiracy
theories.
Clearly gun nutter racists need to work on Critical Thinking 102
before advancing to 103:
1. a fundamental right hinges on,
a. any individualist's arbitrary definition of hardware,
b. the legistature's definition of hardware,
c. the Supreme Court's definition of constitutional hardware,
d. commonly accepted values.
2. The Bill of Rights was intended as a check on,
a. fuel prices,
b. Hollywood style home invaders,
c. Muslim terrorists,
d. federal power.
3. The federal government has been checked on U. S. soil by
individualist ownership of guns,
|
| Show full article (1.79Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ShrikebackShrikeback Date: Jun 21, 2008 12:53
peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:afaba015-600e-4535-9627-0698cc6b7014@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 9:57?am, "Shrikeback" hotmail.com> wrote:
>> d. A gigantic alien conspiracy
> Violent hate filled NRA bigots are always coming up with conspiracy
> theories.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But we do know for certain that this is
a characterist of leftard moonbats. They are like John Birchers
of the Left. Anyway, either you really are too stupid to recognize
satire, or you are only pretending to be too stupid to recognize
satire here.
> Clearly gun nutter racists need to work on Critical Thinking 102
> before advancing to 103:
Clearly this is a dodge of the central question:
Would the assassination of Hitler by a lone individualist
well-oiled gun be a Bad Thing. It's a simple question,
but you ask the Shrilltanker paranoid moonbats, and
all they can do is dodge & dodge & dodge & dodge.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 13:18
On Jun 21, 12:53 pm, "Shrikeback" hotmail.com> wrote:> peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:afaba015-600e-4535-9627-0698cc6b7014@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 9:57?am, "Shrikeback" hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> d. A gigantic alien conspiracy
>> Violent hate filled NRA bigots are always coming up with conspiracy
>> theories.
> Maybe yes, maybe no.
Definitely yes for the gun nuts planning violent assassinations of
public officials.
Now work on Critical Thinking 102 before a lot of suits park outside
your doublewide.
Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin.
Critical Thinking 102
1. a fundamental right hinges on,
a. any individualist's arbitrary definition of hardware,
b. the legistature's definition of hardware,
|
| Show full article (2.15Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 13:20
A key word search of all U. S. district and federal circuit appeals
courts on Lexus-Nexus reveals hundreds of hits for "First Amendment"
or "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" when paired with
the
following terms:
public nudity
KKK
gay
nazi parade
flag burning
Only six hits appear when the same First Amendment terms are paired
with "economic" or "employment" and looking up those opinions reveals
that the combination was purely coincidental in all 6 cases.
The First Amendment has never been invoked for free speech on
economic
issues in an Art. III Court.
From the above a critical thinker could conclude,
a. Americans aren't interested in money,
b. WestGroup has a better search engine or data bank,
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: nospamnospam Date: Jun 21, 2008 14:39
On 21 Jun 2008, Bret Cahill aol.com> (incorrectly to the
point of bizarrely) wrote:
> The First Amendment has never been invoked for
> free speech on economic issues in an Art. III Court.
Returning to your legal research and this time reading carefully then
following up on the following rulings (among literally hundreds of
others that also readily could have been) then by reading just a fair
sampling of others that cite/discuss them will result in your
reevaluating the statement above:
Va. State Bd. Pharmacy, etc. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, et al.,
96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)
(discussing and rejecting a so-called " 'commercial speech' exception"
to the First Amendment: to the potential buyer of goods/services,
"interest in the free flow of commercial information . . .may be as
keen, if not keener by far, than [the consumer's interest in the day's
most urgent political debate")
|
| Show full article (2.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 15:54
>> The First Amendment has never been invoked for
>> free speech on economic issues in an Art. III Court.
>
> Returning to your legal research and this time reading carefully then
> following up on the following rulings (among literally hundreds of
> others that also readily could have been) then by reading just a fair
> sampling of others that cite/discuss them will result in your
> reevaluating the statement above:
>
> Va. State Bd. Pharmacy, etc. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, et al.,
> 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)
> (discussing and rejecting a so-called " 'commercial speech' exception"
> to the First Amendment: to the potential buyer of goods/services,
> "interest in the free flow of commercial information . . .may be as
> keen, if not keener by far, than [the consumer's interest in the day's
> most urgent political debate")
>
> Zauderer v. Office Disciplinary Counsel, etc.,
> 105 S. Ct. 2265(1985)
> (ban the violation of which subjects an attorney to disciplinary ...
|
| Show full article (2.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 15:55
>> A key word search of all U. S. district and federal circuit appeals
>> courts on Lexus-Nexus reveals hundreds of hits for "First Amendment"
>> or "freedom of expression" or "freedom of speech" when paired with
>> the
>> following terms:
>
>> public nudity
>
>> KKK
>
>> gay
>
>> nazi parade
>
>> flag burning
>
>> Only six hits appear when the same First Amendment terms are paired
>> with "economic" or "employment" and looking up those opinions reveals
>> that the combination was purely coincidental in all 6 cases.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Jun 21, 2008 16:00
>> The First Amendment has never been invoked for
>> free speech on economic issues in an Art. III Court.
>
> Returning to your legal research and this time reading carefully then
> following up on the following rulings (among literally hundreds of
> others that also readily could have been) then by reading just a fair
> sampling of others that cite/discuss them will result in your
> reevaluating the statement above:
>
> Va. State Bd. Pharmacy, etc. v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, et al.,
> 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)
> (discussing and rejecting a so-called " 'commercial speech' exception"
> to the First Amendment: to the potential buyer of goods/services,
> "interest in the free flow of commercial information . . .may be as
> keen, if not keener by far, than [the consumer's interest in the day's
> most urgent political debate")
>
> Zauderer v. Office Disciplinary Counsel, etc.,
> 105 S. Ct. 2265(1985)
> (ban the violation of which subjects an attorney to disciplinary ...
|
| Show full article (2.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
