Independent Journalists, Freelance Journalists/Bloggers Have Rights - This means You!

Tks for link. Merry Christmas

remember - we have rights. protected rights.

Thread: Connecticut Police Spokesman: Newtown Will Prosecute Independant Journalist Whistleblowers (Video)

Thread: Facebook now threatening to shut down accounts of users who question official narrative on Sandy Hook shooting

Thread: COVER UP?: Troopers assigned to every shooting victims families-TO PREVENT THEM FROM TALKING TO MEDIA [W/ VIDEO]

we have a right to ask questions & demand answers.
truthful answers.
especially when it applies to our children, and our rights as a collective whole

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 12/23/2012 01:18 PM

Bloggers' Rights
[link to www.eff.org (secure)]

See Apple v. Does [link to www.eff.org (secure)]

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was a Landmark United States Supreme Court case that changed the precedence involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

however....1983

Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell
[link to law2.umkc.edu]
At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea.

Admittedly, these oft-repeated First Amendment principles, like other principles, are subject to limitations. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), we held that a state could lawfully punish an individual for the use of insulting " fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." But the sort of expression involved in this case does not seem to us to be governed by the exception to the general First Amendment principles stated above.

Edward Norton as Alan Isaacman - Freedom Speech
[link to www.youtube.com]


Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 12/23/2012 02:04 PM

The People vs. Larry Flynt - The Supreme Court

[link to www.youtube.com]

pope vs illinois
taste vs law

Soon the whole Constitution will be burnt, a new one written up. How can you support a thing that actually only applies to white American men? Especially you being a female and all.

Piers Morgan has rights to.

oh really dude? you wanna go there?
Thread: The Black Panthers Say Let's, KILL "ALL" White people. Why Isnt this Hate Speech?

*Sigh*

Irrelevant.

"Piss Morgan" /CNNs bloated windbag *he needs to go the fk back to fkatania - doesnt have US citizenship; he needs to keep his politics where they belong - across the pond.

then dont create a dbl standard dude. open wide for chunky.

You're off the rails.

But in the meanwhile you get banned for saying something negative about GLP...

go suck those platitudes out of my left tit thru a crazy straw knucklefuck.

contribute something or go wax that dolphin else where bc youre not doing it in here.

Quote:
"Piss Morgan" /CNNs bloated windbag *he needs to go the fk back to fkatania - doesnt have US citizenship; he needs to keep his politics where they belong - across the pond.

Reaction:
Thats your view. But he has the right to say everything he wants and likes as a journalist working for CNN.

I assume you defend his freedoms and rights?

Yes we have rights on paper. And the fbi has the right to put a bullet in the brain or drone attack any american who makes too much noise or touches a nerve while excercising their 'rights'.

you dont get to come into come into someones house & take a shit on their floor.

cmon....you fuckin know that - but you just wanna break balls.

tell ya what....invite me to your house - i got some neon lipstick ive been itchin to use for graffiti, can i use your walls? <--hey least im asking here

hes entitled to say wtf he wants, and so am i. he can go the fuck back to fuckatania.

We have inalienable rights, meaning these rights are inherently ours they cannot be transferred to us by government. Government can choose to repress those rights, but it can never "take" them away or give them (privileges).

The whole movement is to undermine this simple idea from controlling free speech to illegal searches and seizures to restricted access to firearms or hindering the right to assemble.

Most folks just don't seem to get the simple, I guess they prefer the complex which requires our myriad of professional types in gubment or the "private sector" to tell us how to interpret the complex.

This thread is actually hilarious.

Yep and that Buford T. Justice wannabe in Conneticut needs to understand this before spouting off about prosecuting anyone who publishes something about that shooting that does not agree with the "official" lie...

david ellsberg /the pentagon papers
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

that shit pissed me the fuck off.

Love it love it love it

freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment.

And yet so many bans if we dont agree or a member or mod doesnt like someone calling them out on an issue.

hey dude - dont derail thats number 1.

#2 i dont care what you call out or call me for that matter.

just stick to topic here. which is sandy hook in case you need a refresher.

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 12/23/2012 02:36 PM

And this makes every one of us a journalist with the RIGHT to gather and share information that we, ourselves determine is important to us, our children and future.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.