Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hm! I don't know if the CT law will be struck down anytime soon. Cyberbullying, which this teenage committed, is a "new" phenomenon that legal scholars are still trying to wrap their head around.
SCOTUS, much less federal district courts, may not be in a position to do much about it until legal scholars can, with strong empirical evidence, interpret the ramifications of striking down such laws. Also, I think it is difficult to conclude that prior arguments brought before the Court were not constitutionally strong arguments. I could easily counter-argue that the law as it stands is without reproach. SCOTUS, like the law itself, are products of the times. Slavery was legal before it was illegal. Conversely, alcohol was illegal before it became legal.
As I mentioned earlier, the "spirit" of some laws are created to prevent injury and harm. This is why we have to wear a seatbelt, drive a certain speed, or refrain from consuming illegal narcotics. The CT law is not a hindrance so long as one governs themselves with a degree decorum. It's an easy law to abide by. So I don't look upon it as Uncle Sam babysitting us.
I think you are a little confused, equating seat belt laws with the right to free speech, which is the foundation of all our other rights. Without it, what else do we have?
Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. So speed limits and seat belt laws are all fair game when a state allows you the privilege of driving a car.
I think you are a little confused, equating seat belt laws with the right to free speech, which is the foundation of all our other rights. Without it, what else do we have?
Driving isn't a right. It is a privilege. So speed limits and seat belt laws are all fair game when a state allows you the privilege of driving a car.
I did not equate free speech with seat belt laws. I gave an example of the seat belt law to illustrate the notion that laws are developed to protect people against self-harm (or harming others). I grew up in a time when seat belt laws didn't exist. I remember the pushback against seat belt laws as an infringement on property rights - i.e., "how can the gov't tell me what to do with my own property". Similarly, CT passed a law that adds conditions to free speech. Perhaps the lawmakers decided to write and pass the law as a means of protecting people from bullying (or cyberbullying)? I don't know. But no, I did not equivocate free speech from seatbelt laws. PS - a state doesn't allow you the privilege to drive. Driving is available for anyone who meets the qualifications. I don't think I've ever been to a state where I have been disallowed from driving.
PS - a state doesn't allow you the privilege to drive. Driving is available for anyone who meets the qualifications. I don't think I've ever been to a state where I have been disallowed from driving.
Of course they allow you the privilege to drive. You think it is your constitutional right to drive a car? And they can take away that privilege too. Just break certain laws and they will remove that privilege.
In contrast, no matter what laws you break, you still maintain your 1st amendment rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
