Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 21 6:06 am)
Subject: OT-Constitutional Right to free speech "gagged"
Yup, this is a straightforward example of censorship.
Most things that people describe as "censorship" really aren't ... for
instance, Renderosity or some other forum deciding on its own to delete
certain images is not "censorship" at all, but an implementation of
freedom of the press. (Publishers, which includes websites, are
perfectly free to publish or not publish, and that's meant to be the
natural check on freedom of speech.)
But when a judge tells a newspaper not to publish, that's plain raw
censorship by the strictest definition.
The deeper problem with situations like this one is not the censorship,
but the relatively new assumption that the state owns all children, and
only lends them to the parents until the parents displease the state.
This is emphatically not how parenting was supposed to work!!!
My python page
My ShareCG freebies
I don't believe in making judgments -- one way or the other -- regarding situations about which I know next-to-nothing. Perhaps the judge's ruling was Unconstitutional. Could be. And perhaps the father in this case is every bit as worthless as the authorities apparently believe that he is. Then again: perhaps the father is a totally innocent victim of power-mad, overbearing officials who are seeking to protect / advance their own self-serving interests by stepping over the corpse of the father's battered reputation.
I wouldn't get all morally outraged until I knew the facts......ALL of the facts. Which I don't in this case.
My own native instinct is to sharply distrust the smiling (read: smirking) face of government. Particularly when politicians and bureaucrats wear a seemingly-friendly wolf's-head "playing grin" - the grin of the predator whilst observing his prey -- "I only wanna help you! I'm sacrificin' it all for you -- and for the children!!!!!"........especially when certain.....uh.....'non-conservative' individuals and/or parties are in charge. In fact -- the harder that certain individuals in politics painfully strain their sore-cheeked faces with their well-practiced-in-front-of-the-mirror smiles......the type of smiles that don't quite manage to reach their reptilian snake's eyes (hard, shining jewels of eyes which birds find so mesmerizing and attractive)......the type of smiles which don't habitually flow naturally from them when they aren't standing squarely in front of the main stream media's endless banks of cameras........I find the politician all the more disturbing because of their smiles (and cackles).
BTW - I'm not too happy with any of the picks this time around. I just find one of them somewhat less disturbing than the other two. sigh
In regards to this story: perhaps the father does have a legitimate gripe. And perhaps he's a bad father.....or not. I don't know him.
I would have thought that freedom of speech by its nature would mean that anywhere where the act of doing so isn't in violation of the law, anyones rights or a company's TOS, discussing it would be fair and appropriate should someone wish to do so. It is OT but the post was tagged as such.
Just my 5c.
UA
>> especially when certain.....uh.....'non-conservative' individuals and/or parties are in charge.
Ahem. During the six years of the Conservatve Hunta, we had plenty of them standing up and talking about "If it will only save the life of one child!!!" straight into that TV camera. Such an atitude knows no political bias. Or need I remind you of the disaster that was No Child Left Behind? Of course, when children are no longer useful as political tools, the Shrub is more than happy to discard them into the gutter, as he did with the medical plan that, in his peabrain mind, was expanding too much and taking precious pennies away from the flood of dollars he deems necessary to spend on the current invasion and occupation.
Insofar as the current crop of candidates... well, not to completely derail the thread, but if this is the best this country can cough up as the self-avowed "Leader of the Free World", then all I can say is God help the Free World, because this campaign is turning into an especially bad episode of the Three Stooges, starring Moe McCain, Larry Obama, and Curly Clinton. None of them are anywhere near suitable for that office -- nor were any of the other bozos in the primaries.
To the guy who was frustrated by the judge... well, folks, sadly, a judge can tell a paper not to print something. That happens a lot in cases like this. And it's very, very constitutional.
docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider
To the guy who was frustrated by the judge... well, folks, sadly, a judge can tell a paper not to print something. That happens a lot in cases like this. And it's very, very constitutional.
Actually it's not, that was my point. It's called prior restraint and the only times, and I mean the only times that it's actually allowed to be used is for matter of "National Security" or when somebody's right to a fair trial would be impinged on and even then it's a matter of the very last resort and most often struck down even in those cases.
This judge and the gaurdian ad litem didn't bother to talk with the father to ask that he not talk about things, they went behind his back, did not bother to tell his lawyer what was going on, and issued a restraining order that not only kept him from talking but cut the stories of six other people.
Think about it, how would you feel about your rights were being treated if your responses never saw the light of day because a judge, without giving you a chance to contest or even know until after the fact, told Rosity...."here's a restraining order, don't publish anything this person says until I have a chance to look at it and say it's o.k.." Now do you think it's Constitutional?
We have gag rules put in place all the time from the bench. They're used frequently in family situations, particularly in divorce proceedings. How is this any different?
docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider
Prior Restraints
A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights."1 Since 1931, the Court repeatedly has found that such attempts to censor the media are presumed unconstitutional.2
In the 1976 landmark case Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Court addressed the constitutionality of an order prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting certain information about Erwin Charles Simants, who was accused of murdering the Henry Kellie family in a small town in Nebraska. This case pitted the First Amendment rights of a free press against the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
To ensure that Simants received a fair trial, the Nebraska Supreme Court modified the district court's order to prohibit reporting of confessions or admissions made by Simants or facts "strongly implicative" of Simants.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the prior restraint order. The Court emphasized that the use of prior restraint is an "immediate and irreversible sanction" that greatly restricts the First Amendment rights of the press. "If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication chills' speech, prior restraintfreezes' it at least for the time," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the Court.
To determine whether the prior restraint order was justified, the Court applied a form of the "clear and present danger" test, examining whether "the gravity of the `evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." In applying this test, the Court articulated a three-part analytical framework, which imposed a heavy burden on the party seeking to restrain the press. First, the Court examined "the nature and extent of the pretrial news coverage." Second, the Court considered whether other less restrictive measures would have alleviated the effects of pretrial publicity. Finally, the Court considered the effectiveness of a restraining order in preventing the threatened danger.
The Court found that the trial judge reasonably concluded that the "intense and pervasive pretrial publicity" in the Simants case "might reasonably impair the defendant's right to a fair trial." However, the trial judge did not consider whether other measures short of a prior restraint order would protect the defendant's rights. The trial judge should have considered changing the location of the trial, postponing the trial, intensifying screening of prospective jurors, providing emphatic and clear instructions to jurors about judging the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom or sequestering the jury.
The Court also found that the effectiveness of the trial judge's prior restraint order to protect Simants' right to a fair trial was questionable.
This is from the first amendment handbook
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c05p01.html
Time for a 3rd major political party it seems. I think this 2 party BS has ran its course as it seems neither can fix anything and only seem to worsen matters. Off the subject a bit I don't feel one can say the U.S. has free elections when there are only 2 parties to choose from and when those two parties along with the media do all they can under heaven and earth to make sure that all other legitimate parties are blocked or smeared so badly the American people write them off. We have sanctioned and even invaded other nations who practice this type of politics.
Until people stop thinking they can't fight city hall and erase this stupid idea that speaking out against ridiculous things government gets away with is anti-American and become pro active in the processes of how we elect people we want as leaders things will only worsen over time.
Our nation was born in the fire of rebellion it's in our blood and we are the first to stand against those who want to take freedom from the rest of the world but it is costing us our own.
The freedom of speech is not the only one of our rights being attacked there are others. May I remind those of the battle going on for a Federal ID card by linking all state driver licenses to a Federal mandate. At present only I believe only 4 states are actually standing against this act.
The longer we as a nation continue to hide our eyes and keep settling for the status quo or this ridiculous continuation of "voting for the lesser evil" the more we are going to see everyday rights come under fire and not voting and speaking out is even more dangerous as it opens the door to an even more future oppressive and frightening form of government.
I am only speaking my mind on this and unfortunately most who feel as I do are written off as wack jobs. My response to that is I guess the Founding Fathers were wack jobs and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States are also wack job documents.
Quote - My own native instinct is to sharply distrust the smiling (read: smirking) face of government. Particularly when politicians and bureaucrats wear a seemingly-friendly wolf's-head "playing grin" - the grin of the predator whilst observing his prey -- "I only wanna help you! I'm sacrificin' it all for you -- and for the children!!!!!"........especially when certain.....uh.....'non-conservative' individuals and/or parties are in charge. In fact -- the harder that certain individuals in politics painfully strain their sore-cheeked faces with their well-practiced-in-front-of-the-mirror smiles......the type of smiles that don't quite manage to reach their reptilian snake's eyes (hard, shining jewels of eyes which birds find so mesmerizing and attractive)......the type of smiles which don't habitually flow naturally from them when they aren't standing squarely in front of the main stream media's endless banks of cameras........I find the politician all the more disturbing because of their smiles (and cackles).
You wouldn't have met Tony Blair would you :)
Quote - You wouldn't have met Tony Blair would you :)
No, as a matter of fact I haven't. ;-)
I can't claim to be anything like an expert on Tony Blair. But from what I've gathered, he has both his good points and his bad points.....so it's a mixed record. I do know that he started out his prime minister's career as a sunny, smiling, fresh, well-regarded personality. But like most all honeymoons, it didn't last. He exercised power, made some decisions -- and in so doing made some people mad. That's the way of things in politics. But the bloom was off of the rose for him after that.
It's curious to note that Blair appears to have ambitions beyond the UK. IIRC, he's now angling to become a Big Wheel of one sort or another in the EU. Perhaps the first truly powerful EU president. That would be.......interesting........if it happened.
It's a rare man who can end a political career with most people still thinking highly of him. IMO, Winston Churchill was such a man: although even he has his detractors. I'd also say the same thing -- in both particulars -- about Ronald Reagan. But Reagan isn't here: and we've got what we've got.
Psychologist tell us that 25 percent of the US population are "Authoritarian Followers". Well, guess who has had power around here.
No matter the validity of your case you will be shot down. The new age puritians are now in charge.
But there time is comming to an end, can't you feel it?
Won't be long before there is another batch of 'staffing changes' .
Click on this link then click on the 'relitive' check box and you can see a definitive downward trend!!!
Patience my friend :) The time will come...
That's a l-o-n-g link! I'm impressed!
As for the rest.........I sense that it all means something mysteriously cryptic. These are deep waters, Watson. Deep, and rather dirty. We must continue to gaze into the crystal ball of this enigma.......for in doing so we'll see that the crystal ball needs a bit of dusting.
>> Psychologist tell us that 25 percent of the US population are "Authoritarian Followers".
And another sizable percentage like myself are hardcore cynics when it comes to anyone manipulating the media, whether the government or an aggrieved individual. The truth in this no doubt lies somewhere in the middle -- all we're getting is one side of it.
docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider
BTW - check out this -- somewhat shorter -- link. Youtube looks pretty low on the scale here.
Youtube is clearly going down for the count, for sure ! Youtube is history, I tell ya! Finis!
Quote - >> Psychologist tell us that 25 percent of the US population are "Authoritarian Followers".
And another sizable percentage like myself are hardcore cynics when it comes to anyone manipulating the media, whether the government or an aggrieved individual. The truth in this no doubt lies somewhere in the middle -- all we're getting is one side of it.
Huh.....that's odd. We agree -- for the most part.
I'll add the caveat that I have seen situations where one party was clearly right, and the other party was clearly in the wrong. But in this particular situation, based upon what we "know" so far: I can't tell.
What I have found interesting is that the right now say the left are the totalitarians and the left say the right are, and both sides have some fairly persuasive evidence.
I had a discussion about this recently with a friend of mine. One of us is left politically and the other right, though neither of us consider ourselves or the other extremist, and we came to the conclusion that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are really very respectful of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights these days, not if said respect gets in the way of their respective agendas.
Everything seems to be about ideological purity and party loyalty these days, with the law and the Constitution often all but forgotten.
If I'm not mistaken, both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (and perhaps others) warned against allowing professional political parties, and of just this kind of danger.
I have never voted 3rd party in my life, though I've been tempted. -- but maybe the time is long overdue to give in to the temptation.
It does not matter what the"other side of the story" is, When something is unconstitutional, as the guy just showed you with the decisions of the supreme court, Then IT IS UNCONSTITIONAL PERIOD. Who cares if it is Jeffrey Daumer or Adolf Hitler and what their story is. The constitution says no period. It didn't say unless it involves a bad guy, it said ALL have the right to free speach.
Unless you are familiar with the case and you are a member of the Indiana Bar, you cannot know all the circumstances of the case. I love watching CourtTV and listening to their attorney commentators who may have a license to practice in one state but have little to no working knowledge of another state's laws. Besides, this is Civil not Criminal. Unless a jury is involved, civil court decisions are decided by the judge. I don't know what kind of lattitude Indiana Family law gives the judge on motions such as he made. In the end, he cover his butt by couching it in the terms that everything he has done is in the best interest of the children.
Federal law supercedes civil or state law , especially concerning the costitution. The supreme court supersedes them all. If something is unconstitutional, I'm sorry you may not do it no matter what state you happen to be in. And no state may make laws that allow you to violate the constitution. And that includes civil laws.
That is just what the GAL stated "the best interests of the children" in order to get her motion through. However, if you read the article an Indiana law professor himself did stated that it was unconstitutional and if you read the law I quoted this is a problem on a Federal level. I may not be a lawyer but take a look at this, article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution states:
No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever; but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible. Accordingly, Section 9 expressly extends protection to speaking, writing or printing “on any subject whatever.” case law in Indiana “affirms the rights of expression in language more comprehensive than the First Amendment.”
So if Indiana allows that a teenager screaming vulgarities about the school policy about piercing is deemed to be protected under Indiana then a man complaining about how agents of the state in their capacity as state workers wronged him and his family should also be protected. This protection should not be based upon whether he is suspected of any foul action, nor should it be based on "the best interests of the children" as gaged by the State. He is still their father and still innocent in the terms of the law, so he should be allowed free speech.
Quote - >> Psychologist tell us that 25 percent of the US population are "Authoritarian Followers".
And another sizable percentage like myself are hardcore cynics when it comes to anyone manipulating the media, whether the government or an aggrieved individual. The truth in this no doubt lies somewhere in the middle -- all we're getting is one side of it.
This is just interesting that you say this...since this whole thing started from the State wanting to make sure that the media only got one side of things......their side.
As the person who posted this thread showed you the supreme court has time and time again made it very clear go read up on it. In fact ther are very few things that you may not say any time you please. One of those is you may not shout fire in a movie house. This is an old, old issue from the original writings of the constitution and has been decided over and over again. And the press in particular has far more leeway than almost anyone else. The very thing this judge did has already been decided in the supreme court more than once, it is law.
Whether anything of this sort should or should not be allowed to happen is moot. It has happened, it will continue to happen more and more frequently. Why?
The people have spoken at the polls. They have elected to surrender their rights and freedoms; by empowering individuals that use the constitution as toilet paper. Simple as that.
Time to pay the piper...
Friends don't let friends use booleans.
Sean mentioned it, and I wonder if this is the case here. In most Family/Juvenile Courts in the US, there is a standing Gag Order, which is the Judges responsiblity to enforce. Normally the media will not report on Custody Battles. We had a similar situation where I live. When the news media contacted the other parent's attorney for comment, they asked the Judge to enforce the Gag Order. The judge sent a letter warning them that reporting on evidence in the proceedings violated the Gag Order and could make them subject to Contempt Charges. The news media asked the judge to preview the story before they would air it, to make sure it did not violate the standing Gag Order. The judge refused and the media outlet decided not to air the piece until the proceedings had been closed, which ended the Gag Order.
I have seen some nasty Court Cases when it comes to custody and things said by one party or another often can not be proven false, even if they can not be proven true. The ones that really get harmed in all this are the kids as then try to go on and live a somewhat normal life. The courts are mandated with considering and protecting the children's welfare. Anyone here that parents divorced, even if it was not a major custody battle, can understand that they hope to God that what their parents say about each other at home or in court do not make it to their friends or the community.
ratscloset
aka John
Quote - Sean mentioned it, and I wonder if this is the case here. In most Family/Juvenile Courts in the US, there is a standing Gag Order, which is the Judges responsiblity to enforce. Normally the media will not report on Custody Battles. We had a similar situation where I live. When the news media contacted the other parent's attorney for comment, they asked the Judge to enforce the Gag Order. The judge sent a letter warning them that reporting on evidence in the proceedings violated the Gag Order and could make them subject to Contempt Charges. The news media asked the judge to preview the story before they would air it, to make sure it did not violate the standing Gag Order. The judge refused and the media outlet decided not to air the piece until the proceedings had been closed, which ended the Gag Order.
I have seen some nasty Court Cases when it comes to custody and things said by one party or another often can not be proven false, even if they can not be proven true. The ones that really get harmed in all this are the kids as then try to go on and live a somewhat normal life. The courts are mandated with considering and protecting the children's welfare. Anyone here that parents divorced, even if it was not a major custody battle, can understand that they hope to God that what their parents say about each other at home or in court do not make it to their friends or the community.
You do realize though, this is not a divorce case. This is the department of children's protective services trying to term rights and trying to make sure the father doesn't get to complain to the media.
If he is party to the case, his comments can be subject to the Gag Order.. it is still in Family Court where these things happen. It is a Custody Battle in a sense, whether he gets rights to the kids or not apparently. Remember, Children's Protective Services got involved for some reason. With the work loads these agencies have, they are not randomly going around knocking on doors to take kids for no reason. I personally have dealt with Protective Services and it takes a lot for them to get to the point they are looking at taking the kids away.
If he is not party to an active case, then the judge has no say in the matter. The judge is making sure he does not complain during an active case. The guy is unhappy about how things are going and either correctly or not, feels his voice is not being heard. If the news outlet abides by the Judges order, then he has judicial rights to make such an order. News outlets have very good attorney's
ratscloset
aka John
There is no standing gag order though, this was asked for by the GAL (guardian ad litem) and she asked for it without notifying the father's lawyer. She also lied and told the judge that she had just found about the interview on the day of the airing when she had found about it 4days previous, she lied and said the father refused to to say if he was giving personal details or not, and he told all the cps people at the conference that he was not.
This order was gotten under lies and the father was never given the chance to protest, and while I'm glad CPS is better where you live here in Indiana we have an awful record of CPS doing too much or too little without justification. It's particularly a problem in this instance where the children are special needs and so get extra money for the county. We also don't have an ombudsmen system, all complaints against DCS are handled by DCS so it's the fox guarding the hen-house. We just recently had a three year old die because she was given back to known abusers by supervisors telling the caseworkers"we don't care what you say, give them back to their mother" and nobody was held accountable, Judge Payne said nobody did anything wrong. So it's more than a little questionable when an article asking for ombudsmen and pointing out problems in the system gets chopped, no?
BTW, Acadia thank you. I saw an image of superman crying over the wreckage of the trade towers and it stuck with me and inspired my image.
Just because our polititions, police, and government "routinely" do things does not mean it is legal or right or just. Gag orders of any kind have strict rules to adhere to as outlined by numerous case law decided by the supreme court. They get away with this sort of behavior because no one holds them accountable. There was a time that African Americans in this country were "routinely" not allowed to use the same toilets, eating facilities, or schools, this was not supported by the constitution and has taken many years of effort to change. "Routinely" does not make it right, legal or just. Hold them accountable for their actions!
Very good -- let us know how it turns out.
BTW - I agree that it's best to regard government bureaucrats of any type -- including CPS types -- with a healthy dose of suspicion. But on the other hand, odd as it might sound, they don't lie ALL of the time. Some few of them are actually overworked, underpaid, and seeking-to-be-honorable-and-to-do-right people -- while others are little mini-tyrants whose greatest thrill in life is to exercise petty authority over someone else's life. Usually causing their chosen victims of the moment a lot of pain and personal heartache in the process. They are simple sadists -- who've been granted the power to exercise their sadism under the color of authority. It's a characteristic that's occasionally seen in police officers, DA's, and Congressmen, too.
But the fact remains that in a situation like this one: you can't make a judgment until you have knowledge.
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1647242
Hey I don't normally do this, but if any place should care about first amendment rights being violated, this place should. Please go to my picture, please read and if you are in the U.S. and this violation bothers you then please write to your politicians, your media......anybody else that you can think of!!A judge should never get away with this, but she is running with no opponents in a small town and feels safe to abuse her power. I intend to use my right to free to make sure that she has to be accountable for her actions. Thanks.