It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN-Constitutional!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
"A public library may impose reasonable regulations on the manner of a proposed extremist speech. Libraries may also impose reasonable restrictions on the location, size and duration of the meetings. However, public libraries must equally apply any restriction to all speakers. If a library fails to impose its restrictions generally then it may not be allowed to later impose the restrictions on extremist speakers. "

This is a new regulation passed in the United States to regulate how we speak! Does this not insult your intelligence knowing that if your thoughts get too "extreme" that it will be "regulated" and watered down. This has gone too far.



from
adl.org...




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Sorry I dont see anywhere where it mentions a new regulation, could you point it out please.



In an effort to counter this tactic with information, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has issued a guide for librarians, Public Libraries: A New Forum for Extremists. The guide presents some of the legal questions regarding how a library can respond legally and safely to requests by extremist groups for use of meeting space or other accommodation, while avoiding the kind of confrontations that have erupted in the past, such as the recent gathering of racists at a library in York, Pennsylvania, where police were called in to break up violent clashes between members of the anti-Semitic and racist World Church of the Creator and anti-racism activists. The guide will be distributed to more than 16,000 public libraries nationwide through the League's network of 30 regional offices.


Unless this is what you think a regulation is.



[edit on 25/1/05 by Skibum]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkibumWorld Church of the Creator

Ack! Those knuckleheads are bad news. A public place should certainly be able to regulate presentation time and whatnot when its inciting or potentially inciting violence. Obviously a narrow path to walk tho.

I wonder if any ATS members are part of the world church of the creator?


I suspect they'd never admit to it, since they're proably too scared to mention that sort of thing even annonymously online.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by SkibumWorld Church of the Creator

Ack! Those knuckleheads are bad news. A public place should certainly be able to regulate presentation time and whatnot when its inciting or potentially inciting violence. Obviously a narrow path to walk tho.

I wonder if any ATS members are part of the world church of the creator?


I suspect they'd never admit to it, since they're proably too scared to mention that sort of thing even annonymously online.



Huh?????Not familiar with it. Are you asking me if I'm a member or the original poster? From researching on the web I can tell you I am not a member nor would I knowingly associate with them.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeHead
"A public library may impose reasonable regulations on the manner of a proposed extremist speech. Libraries may also impose reasonable restrictions on the location, size and duration of the meetings. However, public libraries must equally apply any restriction to all speakers. If a library fails to impose its restrictions generally then it may not be allowed to later impose the restrictions on extremist speakers. "

This is a new regulation passed in the United States to regulate how we speak! Does this not insult your intelligence knowing that if your thoughts get too "extreme" that it will be "regulated" and watered down. This has gone too far.



from
adl.org...


This is sick, the goverment, in any kind of a democracy CAN NEVER TELL THE PEOPLE, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, AND WHAT TO SPEAK! THAT IS ONLY A PRIVATE CITZEN'S CHOICE OF THEIR PROPERTY(business, home,etc.), NOT THE GOVERMENT. EXTERME=ANTI-CORRUPTION/ANTI-UN POLICES/ANTI-MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE GOVT. speech, which according to the 1st Amendement, they CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY OR #2, which is what it's about. Contray to popular belief, their way of writing and speeching isn't that difficult to understand.
We need to fight now, but we need to thing how, or we are what they say we are a bunch of "slackers" not interested in politics. How are we going to STOP THEM, if all we do is go home and complain and don't put things like UNSECO, Pier 57, and the goverment study of mind control in the public's face, and use their legislation and actions against them, like they do against us?

And for those who don't understand, they can change the definition of "Fair" very quickly, if somebody doesn't like it.

[edit on 1/25/05 by BSB2005]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Huh?????Not familiar with it.

VBPs, very bad people.

Are you asking me if I'm a member or the original poster?

No.

From researching on the web I can tell you I am not a member nor would I knowingly associate with them.

Since you're probably a relatively normal human being (in spite of posting to ATS , natch), I wouldn't think that you were.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
What is extremist speech, anyway? Who decides what views are and are not too extreme to discuss? This kind of regulation is ridiculous.

Remember: the Constitution is the highest law of the land. A law that is unconstitutional is not legal - it is automatically rendered void by a superseding law.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
What is extremist speech, anyway?

"Who the hell wants those [insert hated group here] in this country anyway! They didn't found it, they got nuthin' to do with it! Send em back where they came from [africa, mexico, france, whatever]"


Remember: the Constitution is the highest law of the land. A law that is unconstitutional is not legal - it is automatically rendered void by a superseding law.

its not rendered void by another law, its struck down as law by the court system. Obviously, if this was an actual law, then it coud be considered in court, at which point it would be up to a judge to decide 'whats extreme'.




top topics



 
0

log in

join