Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Media is Taking ME to Court Tomorrow!!!

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by samstone11
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 

One more quick note: I have seen both here and wandering the internet for details and answers that the subjectivity and broad power of interpretation of the law by judges can be both good or bad, and make criminals saints or vice-versa. If all law was black or white with no room for differing opinions or application of the letter of the law vs. the intent of the law, would that be good or bad? That is something else I don't have an answer for.

Best regards.


If all laws were Black and White we would have to reduce the number of laws we had because Damn Near Everyone would be in Prison.

Let us say we compare it to a computer. A Computer only sees 1's or 0's technically. Either a High or Low. There is no room for Fuzzy Logic which might constitute a possible maybe.

It is the Fuzzy Logic that determines a mistrial or an acquittal. Keep in mind that the more that are involved in making the determination (aka the Jury) the Fuzzier the Logic.

A Note of Optimism. . .. One thing that makes this Country Great is that Not Everything is Black and White.

Please keep us posted on the outcome.




posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 



If all laws were Black and White we would have to reduce the number of laws we had because Damn Near Everyone would be in Prison.


I think this is probably the best observation of all. If not for the occasional but rare governmental representative, I certainly would be enjoying a rent-free existence with three square tray meals and probably a lot of free time to think about what I have done or not done. My family and I have experienced enough turmoil to cover us for the remainder of our lives and I definitely prefer the shortest path away from any form of confrontation these days. Still, I believe I have an obligation to advocate for others, if not myself and family (assuming I have opportunity and/or an appropriate skill set) when I encounter something that I can potentially be expected to produce a better result for the next person. I suspect my days of political/legal rights campaigning has taken too much of a toll for me to continue as actively as in the past so I will have to watch more from the sidelines. I would encourage younger generations (I am 55 years old) to search for the well hidden and often moving gray area between true advocacy and the dangerous absence of inhibitions and apply yourself to the greater good. In other words, help when and where you can. Apply your talents when those around you may not even realize they are counting on you, but be cautious and aware there is a line in the sand not to be crossed if you expect any semblance of success. Don't shoot yourself in the foot, but don't cower. History is full of the actions of nameless people who changed the world in small and huge ways and at any time on any given day you could be the one who is called upon to make that difference. Finally, we all all make mistakes. Learn and grow, but keep moving forward because there are almost always others who need you.

Regards.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 


Depends on what state you live in, you might be able to file charges for invasion of privacy. Many states now make it illegal(even for journalists) to record people against their wishes. That is why their is legal president that the "paparazzi" , can harras celebrities, because celebrities by nature of their profession put themselves into the public domain and void certain privacy rights.

Unless there is a legitimate reason for a person to become of social interest, they very much have the right to not be photgraphed or recorded agains their wishes. That is also why there are many court precedent about journalists and citizens, being able to film on duty police officers.

Those who will say any person who dares have a right to privacy is a fascist, is a fascist themselves, as people clearly have a right to privacy. Not just privacy from government, but privacy from other people too.

Some people like to advocate for an open society so they can take voyeuristic pictures. You just have to see it for what it is. When a person say's we should have an "open society", what they mean is they want society to be open to them. They want to be able to go where-ever they want to, take whatever they want to, date have sex with anyone they want to, and in the end they don't care if people want to. If people don't want to allow them in they will break in; if they aren't given what they demand they will try and steal it; and if they are told no, they will try to use physical force or the cohesive arm of the government to achieve their goals.

An open society is an enslaved society.



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Did I miss it


What was the result of the trial ?

Cody



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by korathin
 


You whole post is bollocks. There is no privacy in public.






top topics
 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join