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.

 

Juror booted out for naughty T-shirt

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
If someone thinks so little of themselves that they wear obscenities on their clothes, imagine what little they think of everyone else. If she can't care enough about the situation to dress properly, thank god she got kicked off the jury. You want people who are level minded on your jury.

What you wear speaks volumes about you. it is not the one place to use freedom of speech in a professional setting.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



The Supreme Court does use a somewhat more precise rule, called the “Miller test“, to establish if something is obscene and hence doesn’t merit protection under the First Amendment:
whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.



linky


Do your homework folks. Free speech HAS ITS LIMITS. And you can't scream that our rights are being eroded everytime someone gets censored.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
it's called respect, and this moron didn't have any and good on judge to boot her.

If i was on trial and relying on a jury of my "so called" peers I wouldnt want some disrespectful k9 on my jury.

there's a time and place for everything.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LurkingSleipner
 



First - "insert rediculous number" for not paying attention.

Where did I state anything about what was morally right or wrong? I do not even recall using the word moral in my post. Why insinuate I am putting something in my post that is not there.

I never said anything about the shirt being moral or not. I said respect the rules that are set before you when you go some place. Your reply makes little sense other than ramblings of someone who feels “offended” by someone “pushing” morals down their throat when there was nothing of the sort taking place.

Facts are you know before you go to court the rules of dress that are in place. If you are not bright enough to follow those rules you are not bright enough to participate in the judgment of what another person’s future will hold for them. Simple enough?

Let me say it again.
If you are not intelligent or mature, enough to read and follow rules set before you you have no business making decisions in another’s life. Putting on something that would be less distracting is not that difficult a task and does not seem to much to ask either.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I will be so happy when Crosses are "offensive". They already are to many many people.

They need a banning.

Anything religious by anyone should be banned because it's extremely offensive and distracting.

Never mind the fact we can ignore it. But that's not how you oppress others, we have to actively go out and force them to change to our personal standards.

Can't wait for those upcoming laws on what type of Hair style is acceptable.

Also let's ban any cloths that have corporate logo's on them, because to me corporations are offensive and it is highly distracting and offensive for someone to force me to sit there and stare at it all day.

Keep defending this crap folks, and one day you will be next. Mark these words...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The judge is the final say in the courtroom of course, you can appeal or ask for another judge, but regardless it is considered their courtroom and always has.

It has been this way since we have had laws, courtrooms, and judges. I have never read or seen anything that states the judge is not the one who imposes rule in the court.

That is how it does not differ from a private home and the owner.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


You say that those against the oppression of Liberty are immature and ignorant and disrespectful well, I disagree.

I think those who actively support and attack Liberty to be the immature, ignorant, and disrespectful folks.

I know I am in the minority. That will change soon though, I hope.

Give me Liberty or give me Death?

The real immature folks are the ones who need a JUDGE to play mommy/daddy and teach "manners".

Us grown ups want to live free and have our Liberty protected. We don't need mommy/daddy gov't to teach us manners...That is what real biological parents are for...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


The judge is the final say in the courtroom of course, you can appeal or ask for another judge, but regardless it is considered their courtroom and always has.



No the Constitution is the final say.

It is the LAW of the LAND.

Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as "the Supreme Law of the Land" (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government.


en.wikipedia.org...


Trumped.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That is where appeals, change of venue or what have you comes into play. As far as the courtroom goes though the judge has the say. They would not have placed judges in the spot of making those decisions if they were not used or needed.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That is where appeals, change of venue or what have you comes into play. As far as the courtroom goes though the judge has the say. They would not have placed judges in the spot of making those decisions if they were not used or needed.

Raist


So you support Judges ignoring the law and legislating new laws from the bench of their opinions?

I think you should reconsider this than and be willing to reject it. This is crossing the line of fair justice into the realm of opinionated oppression.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I never said anything about attacking liberty, or being oppressed or whatever. Try not putting words into someone’s mouth when making posts.

You can call yourself a grown up all you wish (implying that my age is one that is immature) try not assuming so much about me and sticking to making valid arguments. Facts are there is a dress code of the court and she chose not to abide by them causing her dismissal as a juror.

Raist


[edit on 6/26/10 by Raist]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


There is a dress code set forth by the court for being present there. Why is that difficult to understand?


I would defend the same had someone worn a T-shirt with a cross or whatever on it. If it is not the appropriate attire, it should not be worn. I have no problem with someone who can only afford a T-shirt wearing it as long as it is a blank piece of cloth.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


There is a dress code set forth by the court for being present there. Why is that difficult to understand?


I would defend the same had someone worn a T-shirt with a cross or whatever on it. If it is not the appropriate attire, it should not be worn. I have no problem with someone who can only afford a T-shirt wearing it as long as it is a blank piece of cloth.

Raist


Exactly. This is all based on your subjective opinions.

This is not what LAW is about.

You need to rethink all of this way more deeply.

Please stop using opinions as a basis for putting people in jail.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Where did it say she got put in jail?

Please stick to facts. She just got kicked off the jury not thrown in jail. Again it is a dress code rule set forth not an opinion.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Where did it say she got put in jail?

Please stick to facts. She just got kicked off the jury not thrown in jail. Again it is a dress code rule set forth not an opinion.

Raist


Wow man read the thread. There are multiple stories here of how Judges threaten people with JAIL for not following dress codes.

Like that guy who had baggy pants and was forced to get his tattoos REMOVED????

You are totally ignoring the issue by trying to turn this into a single incident. It's a widespread problem in thousands of communities obviously.

This isn't about one person. It's about everyone.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


And you are trying to turn this into opinion when it is about dress code that has been that way.

The guy with the tattoo thing is a bit far but the dress code thing is set in place. So yes I have read the thread (again try to do less assuming, it makes you look foolish), that guy is not what the thread is about though. That guy might got a raw deal and could have appealed the choice but he didn’t, that guy also was not abiding by the dress code. Maybe if he had dressed according to that code the judge would not have been so harsh on him.

You keep ignoring it is a code that has been in place and are trying to make it a personal issue involving opinion. Either you follow the rule or not.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


Wow man read the thread. There are multiple stories here of how Judges threaten people with JAIL for not following dress codes.


Then perhaps you should learn a lesson from the stories. Heck, when I was growing up, we had dress codes at school that were so strict, a principals assistant used to roam the halls, measuring how long a skirt was! Personally, I think part of the problem with the world, is that people are no longer held to standards, and thing that being smelly, dirty, and dressed innapropriately are a right! I transitioned from Jr. Highschool, where we were required to wear dresses and skirts to school every day, including garters for pany hose, and garther belts for other private things, in freaking, freezing Chicago! You could not wear slacks even when it was below freezing! What didn't kill us, made us stronger! Hence my beliefs that you do show up for court, wearing proper attire. Court is not anything like Judge Judy, where people have their bellies hanging out, or other body parts! It's serious!


Like that guy who had baggy pants and was forced to get his tattoos REMOVED????


Baggy pants are a sing of disrespect. I have worked at places, in the last couple fo years where tattoos must be covered, and peircings covered up, with bandaids. The boss had a box of 'em!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Blanca Rose]

sorry for the edits, I'm quote challenged!

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Let me ask this.

Do you have a job? Do you show up to job interviews dressed however you feel? Do you show up at said job dressed anyway you chose?

Would you as an employer hire someone who showed up at an interview looking as if they could careless or if they looked like they were out to show respect for others who might be different from them.

In all cases, there is what is deemed appropriate dress attire. You will not see someone is a business setting wearing baggy pants with their butts hanging out for the world to see their under clothes nor will you see them wearing a shirt with a message on it. Face it a sales person will not wear things that others might not take a liking to either because it could cost them sales. In this case though much like with a job there is a dress code, you cannot argue against that. You might not like the dress code but there is one, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I cannot go to my job wearing anything I want if I want to keep said job. This is life you either man up and deal with it or you face the consequences of not doing so.

Raist



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Folks, hold on just a minute here.

This girl wore a shirt with the "F" word to a court room during which she was supposed to be on a jury. We can keep arguing whether or not she should be allowed to all day long, but the simple fact is that everyone with a brain knows that there are going to be repercussions for something like that. Right or wrong, that's currently the way it is.

Now let's look at what really went down, in this case.

1. She ignored obvious rules and traditions for only one of two reasons: She was trying to get kicked off the jury, or she was trying to make a grab for attention.

2. She got both: She was immediately kicked out of the courtroom and the story was reported on the Internet, and it's now being debated here and probably in many other places.

3. She didn't face fines, jail time, or punishment of any other sort. Absolutely nothing bad happened to this girl in the first place.

4. She was not forced to change the shirt, at least as far as the article tells us. It would appear that she walked right out of that courtroom still wearing that shirt, into public for everyone to see.

5. Her ever-important message of asking who Kanye West is was not only dictated very clearly to the court and the people in it, but because of this publicity her message has now gotten out to thousands of people who have read about her and her shirt. Her freedom of speech has, in effect, been boosted rather than suppressed by the judge's actions.

6. The trial was able to proceed. Other than the few minutes it took the judge to kick the alternate juror out, the trial was not truly interrupted and justice was still able to be served on the people in the trial.

We are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I strongly suspect that absolutely everyone involved in this story got exactly what they wanted, with absolutely no undesired repercussions for any of them.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by mattifikation]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
A courtroom is not his room, its OUR room. It's the PEOPLE's property. And if this courtroom is NOT people's property, than I refuse to enter it as it is a private property of someone I do not know.

Exactly. I'm glad some people can see the truth of the matter, muzzle.

It's a frightening world when so many people on this thread will meekly bow, show some BS respect and take whatever the Judge decides to give. I guess when you take something so often, you get used to the pain when you bend over so often?


Originally posted by mattifikation
Unfortunately, some people have come to the ridiculous conclusion that freedom can only be achieved by anarchy and therefor have no respect for the law.

Unfortunately, some people have come to the ridiculous conclusion that freedom can only be achieved by law and therefore have no respect for anarchy and common sense.




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join