A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Bk, you're being silly. That is not expressionism or speaking freely, that is inciting Panic which is illegal.

So you can limit what people say? So its not an inherent right to say whatever you want then.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by RedBird

 

You dont have a human right to yell fire in a closed space.. nor do you have the legal right...

The human right, sure...but that's talking morality. But legal right? I'm pretty sure you can yell FIRE anywhere you want so long as you aren't violating noise restrictions or trespassing or anything. I don't think it's illegal to yell SHARK at a beach either if there isn't one!

Originally posted by bknapple32
Nor do you have the right to verbally harass someone in your office because of free speech. You'll get fired and/or sued.

Now you're using the word "harass". That is an exception to the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by RedBird

 

But thats simply not true. You dont have a human right to yell fire in a closed space.. nor do you have the legal right...

Nor do you have the right to verbally harass someone in your office because of free speech. You'll get fired and/or sued.

It's "simply not true" that I believe I have a fundamental, natural, inalienable human right to freedom of belief and expression? What do you even mean?

As to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Can you be banned from this site, and others? Then you don't have a right to free speech on here.

Can you provide any precedence that challenges the right of site owners to dictate what they wish to allow on their site?

Did you agree to the terms of service by creating your account on this site?

Nice try though.

Actually I've heard some cases that Terms of Services are entirely unenforceable because you're required to say Yes in order to use the product.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Terms of service, bud. You agreed to them, willingly. You could challenge all you wanted, YOU agreed to abide the rules of this site when you signed up.

Can you be fired from a job for using certain language? Is that impeding on free speech? Nope.

The human right, sure...but that's talking morality. But legal right? I'm pretty sure you can yell FIRE anywhere you want so long as you aren't violating noise restrictions or trespassing or anything. I don't think it's illegal to yell SHARK at a beach either if there isn't one!

More ignorance. It absolutely is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one.

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by RedBird

 

You dont have a human right to yell fire in a closed space.. nor do you have the legal right...

The human right, sure...but that's talking morality. But legal right? I'm pretty sure you can yell FIRE anywhere you want so long as you aren't violating noise restrictions or trespassing or anything. I don't think it's illegal to yell SHARK at a beach either if there isn't one!

Originally posted by bknapple32
Nor do you have the right to verbally harass someone in your office because of free speech. You'll get fired and/or sued.

Now you're using the word "harass". That is an exception to the 1st amendment.

No. It IS illegal to yell "Fire" in a Movie Theater. Not sure about the "Shark" thing but I guarantee if they wanted to arrest you for doing it you would be beaten, tazed and arrested.
The Constitution itself has no meaning nor merit beyond how it is interpreted (not by you and I)

reply to post by EffTheCIA

Sorry man. I wasn't intending on getting on that topic. I was merely pointing out that the MOTIVE of the crime was gun control. Then baconappled00d decided to say he didn't want to debate gun control, while proceeding to ask a question that was a blatant attempt to start a debate.

Do you really think that if the government of the USA wanted to take it's citizens guns away from them it would have to kill 20 children?

The citizens of the USA elected their government.....they don't need to kill kids to get your guns, if they want them they'll get them, but I don't think they do, I think in the light of another psycho there may be moves to control guns in the US.....and is that really a bad thing?.......do you really need AK-47's and the like to protect your homes?

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Claim 4) Emilie Parker appears in a picture with obama after her death.
Answer) No, she doesnt. There is NOTHING about that picture that proves that Emilie Parker is still alive. What is proven, is that her siblings look a lot like her, and we KNOW they have matching dresses. There is not one single bit of evidence to prove that that picture is Emilie Parker.

Same child. Same dress. No article mentions identical twin and no parent would dress an identical twin in the deceased child's outfit for the memorial.

You don't know mothers and parents then.

And you say no evidence.

I say, there is indeed a lot to question. And actors obviously were employed. I don't know who died and who was taken underground, but I believe that the so called young killer was Murdered By Black Ops as his mother, and who knows how many others died.

And yeah, the Batman movie, its for real.

You're dealing with Murder Incorporated AKA TPTB.

Are you so sure of that statement Unity that you would fly out to Newtown, and state that in the town square for all of these parents that just went through this to hear? So sure of that conviction that you would stand up on national television so the families of these victims could hear it?

I don't think you would..

Everyone needs to back up a minute and I will try once again to explain this..

1) The CSP have never and will not in this case release any hard or concrete information until they are done with their investigation.

2) The parents asked for privacy, the State Police asked for people to give them their privacy they have gotten nothing of the sort since this happened. It's sick.

3) there is no doubt that 18 children lost their lives that day, to suggest otherwise is cruel and well I don't know what else, I can't type what i was thinking, it would get me banned instantaneously.

4) The ENTIRE state of Connecticut is in shock from this. You see it wherever you go in state. You see it on peoples faces and hear it in their words. Contrary to popular belief our state legislature are not made up of professional politicians, they are citizens, all of whom have other jobs, and all of whom want answers as much as people here do, you can be sure they will not turn a blind eye to asking that every single aspect of this be investigated. A lot of them have children or grandchildren the same age, and I know they have been hesitant to comment on this incident without knowing more detail, as should everyone, as one State Rep put it, all we have is the media account and that's far from accurate at this time.

The basic point unless you are willing to go to each of these parent's houses and claim they are actors and their kids are still alive to their faces, lets drop that one, they have internet access as well, and I know of one that was at last report seeking legal opinion to see what could be done about such off the wall statements like that.

Have some civility and compassion for us up here.. Everyone expects us to have it for them when something bad happens, it's our turn now...

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Can you be banned from this site, and others? Then you don't have a right to free speech on here.

Can you provide any precedence that challenges the right of site owners to dictate what they wish to allow on their site?

Did you agree to the terms of service by creating your account on this site?

Nice try though.

Actually I've heard some cases that Terms of Services are entirely unenforceable because you're required to say Yes in order to use the product.

"I've heard" ? Provide a legal example. Otherwise "I heard" you're wrong.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Can you be banned from this site, and others? Then you don't have a right to free speech on here.

Can you provide any precedence that challenges the right of site owners to dictate what they wish to allow on their site?

Did you agree to the terms of service by creating your account on this site?

Nice try though.

Actually I've heard some cases that Terms of Services are entirely unenforceable because you're required to say Yes in order to use the product.

"I've heard" ? Provide a legal example. Otherwise "I heard" you're wrong.

He is talking about EULA and is correct.

Sony was sued .
This would not fall under that as you could be kicked for any reason- But he is right, a EULA is not enforcable in a court of law.
EDIT: To expand on this- In the TOS or eula they could put "every time you write the word 'and' you will pay ATS $1.00- By clickng "I agree" you agree to this . OR *(as in Sonys case) By accepting this agreement you allow us to put spyware on your Computer- Cilck agree.

These have no legal bearing and in Sonys case got them sued.

But to be censored or kicked from a private site is totally different.

Originally posted by Argyll
Do you really think that if the government of the USA wanted to take it's citizens guns away from them it would have to kill 20 children?

It would in order to sell congress on it. Do you not understand the process in which new legislation gets passed into law?

Originally posted by Argyll
The citizens of the USA elected their government.....they don't need to kill kids to get your guns, if they want them they'll get them, but I don't think they do, I think in the light of another psycho there may be moves to control guns in the US.....and is that really a bad thing?.......do you really need AK-47's and the like to protect your homes?

I'd need every gun the government has to defend myself from them.

Originally posted by bknapple32
More ignorance. It absolutely is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one.

Would love to see the law on that.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


You could have every gun on the planet and it wouldnt matter against the gov. They would just nuke you and be done with it. Or send in a tank and just blow you to smithereens.

Sorry. You are NEVER overthrowing the government unless those involved with military are on your side. In which case you still dont need those guns..

Either way. A gun will not overthrow the government. Ever.

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
He is talking about EULA and is correct.

Sony was sued .
This would not fall under that as you could be kicked for any reason- But he is right, a EULA is not enforcable in a court of law.

I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
More ignorance. It absolutely is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater when there isnt one.

Would love to see the law on that.

Look it up yourself if you are that ignorant. Usually we provide links here. I didnt know I had to provide a link equivalent to proving its illegal to run a red light

reply to post by bknapple32


I was presenting simply another "Odd" aspect of the whole scenario. With my previous experience with religious communities, the whole congregation grieved when ONE member was lost. In this scenario, 8 children and 2 adults were lost from M.Wiess's flock, yet, sadly, they only get a vague reference. Yes, I am an ordained minister, and if it was my flock, they'd get top priority to acknowledge their departure from this life. All the children lost should be highlighted, for the parent's sake. ALL of them, not a passing reference.

Each one of those passed souls deserved a special page, so yes, I am without my bounds deciding what a church should publish. I think (IMO) it would have been appropriate to suspend all other church activity for 1 week, and have a dedicated bulletin in memory of the tragedy, especially from the church that lost the most.

Since you are offended by my supposition, I will refrain from further speculation. However, my comments remain open for rebuttal.

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
He is talking about EULA and is correct.

Sony was sued .
This would not fall under that as you could be kicked for any reason- But he is right, a EULA is not enforcable in a court of law.

I do not see any difference with a Terms of Service on a message board. But that would be up to the Supreme Court to decide. As of yet, I don't think it has ruled on the matter.

I promise you when you get banned again, you wont be able to fight it.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by EffTheCIA

 

You could have every gun on the planet and it wouldnt matter against the gov. They would just nuke you and be done with it. Or send in a tank and just blow you to smithereens.

Sorry. You are NEVER overthrowing the government unless those involved with military are on your side. In which case you still dont need those guns..

Either way. A gun will not overthrow the government. Ever.

I would have the military and police on my side. Maybe not the UN Military/Police, though. However, I would do it peacefully anyway.

No, what I'm talking about needing guns for is to prevent the government from rounding us up and having their way with us. Or at least as a deterrent.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Look it up yourself if you are that ignorant. Usually we provide links here. I didnt know I had to provide a link equivalent to proving its illegal to run a red light

Yeah, an obscure law is super commonly known... just like how it's really commonly known that WTC7 fell down at freefall speed due to gravity!