07-18-2016, 02:23 PM
(07-18-2016, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All terms, including "due process", "national security", and many other are vague. Yet they are all still valid.
Are you saying that there should be no penalty for shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? Are you saying that paranoid schizophrenics with a history of violent criminal behavior should be allowed to own guns?
You can't just say "No exceptions for anything ever!"
Klan rally's can, and have, incited violence. Should we remove their right to publicly assemble and speak freely?
I can go tit for tat with you all day. In deciding to, upon request, suspend rights temporarily because it makes people uncomfortable is a different discussion. In your examples they are rights that have been take because it is determined they interfere with other people's rights. You can never scream fire in a crowded area, you can never carry a gun with mental illness (not supposed to at least), but now we want to take something that is allowed at all other times and make it only illegal when it makes a specific group uncomfortable?
Can the Republicans then ask to not allow local papers to run negative stories during the convention? I mean after all, it could make people angry and risk the public's safety as they could riot.
They are farfetched, but my point has been the same throughout. Allowing the temporary suspension of rights without a real credible reason is a bad idea in the long run.
