As the death toll rises every day. Pro life my ass.

Pregnancy tissue at six weeks.
This does not have a heartbeat.

So thanks for posting it

Like a dress code?

I’m not. I was just wondering if they theoretically could ban it.

...my wife's crucifix is that my wife is not using this symbol of her culture to threaten anybody or to violate the rights of others.

Say that to these guys:



Wearing a piece of jewelry does not violate anyone else’s rights, nor does it constitute a threat.

Would you say that a “fist” constitutes a threat?



This is not at all a complicated concept under either the Speech and Debate Clause or the First Amend
Ent.

Bigotry is not an argument. (I can only assume that the cartoon is an effort to make my wife's culture look dangerous, in order to somehow justify false equivalences.)

There is a huge difference here, whether you want to admit it or not.

No cartoon is going to change the facts in either case. For some reason, you want to avoid the facts. That's why we're talking about peace signs and rainbows, instead of the issue at hand.

Oh, yeah?

Say that to these guys:

Surely there have been at least someone who finds a cross to be a threat, such as the persons depicted.

These morons have every right to wear pins embodying some idiotic opinion of theirs. Freedom of speech is not about whether someone finds it offensive. Someone finds ANYTHING offensive.

The same freedom to display ornaments significant to one’s religion permits other people to similarly express their opinions. That is fairly basic.

You seem to believe it is okay for persons of one religious belief to wear ornaments proclaiming it, but that people with beliefs you don’t like should not be able to wear theirs. That is not how this speech thing works.

Displaying symbolic regalia is protected speech.

Just list the things you’d like the Republicans to ban.

They’d ban rainbow pins in a heartbeat.

Fight back? Against someone expressing their opinion by wearing a pin?

Your enemy is the First Amendment.

can't say about the pins themselves, although people vile enough to wear them absolutely should not be allowed on the House Floor...

what in hell is happening in this Country??

Then we can identify them by their "stupid" when the time comes to indict them and lock them up.

It's like those who put themselves on Facebook or TikTok storming the Capitol.

It's self incrimination.

Not sweating the small stuff.

Know thy enemy.


Give them the rope to hang themselves, then....

LOCK THEM UP.

Any implied threat is there in their rhetoric anyway.

At the same time, no less!

By your flare you shall be known.

Let 'em wear 'em. I'd be more concerned about the removal of the metal detectors.

a swift slap up the side of head and kick to the balls.

It doesn't matter.

Article 1, Section 6 US Constitution (in part)

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

...let him order my arrest and imprisonment for speaking my mind.

The point is that you can question it all you like but nothing is going to change in this specific situation.

Back then sexually active gays were considered as "illegals" in several states.

Whenever we brought up gay marriage, the typical response was, "What part of illegal don't you understand?"

But that didn't stop folks from organizing the 1987 Gay Rights March On Washington.

(In fact, in conjunction with the March, 481 of us were busted in a nonviolent CD on the steps of the US Supreme Court demanding that Bowers V Hardwick be overturned, and that, amount other things, gay couples be allowed to marry, as was their constitutional right at the time under Loving V Virginia and the 14th Amendment.)

Bowers V Hardwick was later overturned 17 years ago in Lawrence v Texas in 2004, if I recall correctly.

The first legal gay marriage here in Iowa (after Judge Hanson's ruling) took place on Aug 31, 2007. (Both were students here at the university!)

Too often, whenever we talk about powerful institutions, we forget that we have power as well.

I don't think that defeatism is or has ever been an answer, and I tend to bristle when told otherwise, because it gives me the impression that our opinions don't matter, which is how they want us to feel, so we'll stay home on election day.

If we try, we may not succeed, but if we don't, failure is guaranteed.

Gay marriage in Iowa

Aug 31, 2007

Two men — Sean Fritz, 24, and Tim McQuillan, 21 — got married Friday, Aug. 31, in Des Moines, Iowa. The two Iowa State University students rushed to file all the necessary paperwork and have a marriage ceremony after a judge struck down the state's law preventing same-sex marriages. Shortly after they were married, the judge issued a stay, which prevented the county recorder from issuing any more marriage licenses.

Let the world see which political figures are rolling out the literally red carpet for mass shooters!

To protect that which we agree with.

This is what true free speech looks like at the University of Texas.

Asking for a friend.

just curious.

I have lots of friends on DU and outside of DU.

"asking for a friend" is a saying used here on DU, that's all I meant.

you don't have to of course, I'm just a tad bit curious.

I have no idea what it even is. (A medal, perhaps?)

It reminds me of this, to be honest:

It's a constant reminder to the American public which of our Congress men and women want to tear down the Republic.
Violence is their solution to problems. I's meant to intimidate, and put the rest of the Congress on record that another insurrection isn't just a possibility, but a strong probability.
It puts them on record as willing to embrace mass murder.
We need to have everyone know exactly who these people are, and how truly dangerous they are. The assault weapon pin is perfect for that purpose.

Republicans are revengeful, look at what they did when we removed MTH from committees. If we ban these pins, they will ban pride flags and 1870 pins.

Haven’t heard of those.

…is over by those folks who want to ban rainbow pins, yarmulkes, hijabs, and turbans.

allegiance is to guns not the Constitution!! What jerks

The constitution? The House rules committee? The sergeant of arms of the House?

I still believe congress should wear corporate sponsor patches and big-money donor and think-tank logos so we know exactly who owns who.

Gun pins? Child’s play for children.

it's called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, just like peace symbol pins, rainbow flag pins, flag pins should be allowed.

Another worthless poll.

or you can alert and take your chances with a jury.
Your choice.

but if that makes you feel good.....

Do you suggest we arrest congressmen on the floor who express themselves in a way that you do not approve?

Fortunately, and because of people like you, the First Amendment is a thing.

If it were up to me I'd have them looking like stock-cars. They'd be covered with pins and badges clearly identifying their sponsors.

They are a threat to my safety and well being. I don't like crosses but I don't see them as a threat. I just warns me that the person wearing one probably isn't someone I want to spend much time with.

If they're wearing one, I know they're a fraud that has no real interest in governing or in the American people.

If they want to out themselves as America-hating trash, I see no reason why they shouldn’t get to do that. In fact, they should be REQUIRED to so the rest of us know who they are and don’t fall into the trap of maybe thinking they’re not as bad as they are.

of Mozambique
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Flag_of_Mozambique.svg

It's kind ironic and a little sad. Every week, there's invariably some randomly motivated, "Awesome things that Boomers awesomely awesomed!"

Yet the one thing I really admire from Boomer culture is the Freedom of Speech Movement that originated in Berkeley in the 60s.

And it's like the one thing getting absolutely jettisoned from that era of liberalism.

Free expression is a bedrock principle of liberalism. What . . . the fuck is this pro-censorship attitude creeping all over everything? And does anyone think they'll be in control of it once it's dictated to them by corporations?

It's only my own belief in Natural Law that humans inherently possess rights that keeps me from wondering if people who would not have rights for others deserve them for themselves.

At some point, those who deign to rule over others should be ruled on the same terms themselves.

And I suspect many wouldn't like that.

According to the Wikipedia, I'm a "Boomer", though.

Last edited Sun Feb 12, 2023, 06:23 PM - Edit history (2)

There's a difference between free speech and invading the rights of others.

An Iowa school suspended a student for wearing a T-shirt depicting a gun. Now she's suing

Des Moines Register




snip-------------

Mary Beth Tinker: Some clothing bans OK



Mary Beth Tinker talked about free speech issues to students from various high schools in Iowa during a program making the 50th anniversary of the Tinker vs Des Moines free speech case in 2019 at the State Historical Society of Iowa building in Des Moines.

The student's lawsuit draws many parallels to Tinker vs. Des Moines, which began in 1965 when lead plaintiff Mary Beth Tinker, then a 13-year-old student at what is now Des Moines' Warren Harding Middle School, was suspended along with other students for wearing black armbands after a school board order not to.

Yet Tinker herself told the Des Moines Register she thinks the Johnston district is likely to win if the lawsuit reaches a judgment on the merits.

"Under (the Tinker decision), there is ample room for the censorship of messages that impinge on the rights of others, the often-overlooked second part of the Tinker test," Tinker said in an email, pointing to the Supreme Court's holding that "conduct by the student ... which for any reason ... involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

Tinker said she believes wearing a shirt to school depicting a gun might constitute such an invasion of the rights of others, not just of other students, but of teachers, staff and visitors to the school.

But another expert, Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said he doubts a court would accept that argument.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2023/02/08/pro-gun-rights-t-shirt-prompts-suspension-iowa-student-sues-schools-second-amendment-free-speech/69881634007/

But she’s not a constitutional scholar. Tinker has a professional background as a pediatric nurse who is active in union activism and holds master's degrees in both public health and nursing.

So her opinion isn’t entitled to any more deference than the opinions of those who’re ignite that banning a pin because of its content is offensive to the first amendment.

It may depend where you live, I suppose.



Mary Beth and John Tinker Describe Their Reactions to Supreme Court Case Success

is something only you can explain. I certainly never suggested that. What I suggested is the Mary Beth Tinker’s opinion on how that precedent applies or doesn’t apply to facts arising 54 years later is no more compelling than any other non- Constitutional scholar’s opinion.

...this is your way of saying that your opinion differs from mine.

...considers 54 years ago as ancient history.

Especially in a subthread focussed on "free-speech boomers".

At least here on DU.

Most of it (at least these past few days), is coming from the same very few posters, over and over and over. Each time someone in a DU conversation doesn't validate those posters' demand to violate the first amendment, they start three NEW DU threads and assorted push polls on the same subject. Because they think that makes them look less effin' dopey.

Silly of them.

for every stone in this world, there is a space for it.

No, I've never even heard of this BlueManDude.

And Democrats should wear lapel pin pictures of school children that were killed by them.

When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, the AR-15 style rifle is the majority/plurality preferred weapon for killing school children.

DU is knocking it out of the park on first amendment issues. Utterly illiberal and depressing.

Is it that they might disagree with you on something?

I think you are well aware of what I considered "utterly illiberal and depressing" in the threads I referenced and it was not people speaking freely.

As someone who was initially drawn to the left by our hardline defense of 1st amendment issues through groups like the ACLU, the current shift towards authoritarianism and censorship by many is disturbing.

Guess what we won't be able to wear if you ban them?

Ask the parents of Sandy Hook your poll question.

else ever could. Fuck them. That little pin speaks volumes.

... it's better than a noose pin, which is what most of them would rather have.