Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Thank you for the reminder. All good. God bless.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If it hurts innocent others, yes. For an equivalent example, if I drive 75 in a 25, I'm putting myself and others at risk. Do you think there should be any speed limits? Montana tried it on their expressways but rescinded it after a couple of years.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Not a great comparison, since government is not authorized to regulate citizens' health but is authorized to regulate its road systems. But the example you offered for applying judgment is sound and I agree with it. IE, If I understand the thing I'm doing to result in the injury of others—if that is my judgment—I'm not going to do it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The CDC and FDA, amongst others, say something quite different, and this also falls under the "promote the general welfare" found in the Preamble.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Oh? Do the CDC and FDA say that they are authorized to regulate citizens' health? This I was not aware of. Where is that found in the law? Could you cite it for me?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
They are advisory branches, amongst many others, and then the three branches can take their advice.
But my main point is that you really are coming off as being uncaring about others.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
Oh? I was not aware that executive-branch agencies were given authority to advise either the legislative or judicial branches. Again, can you point me to where this is found in the law?
I appreciate that. Without clarifying things with posters in these discussions it can be easy for us to imagine people to be what they are not.
<comment removed for not being conducive to good-faith discourse; replacing with:
I have found that when one defends human and civil rights, which is a good thing, one is often perceived as being indifferent to those who suffer if the proposed remedy is harmful to others. I suppose that is because rights are abstract, but people are not. I will try to take more care in my posts to express compassion for those whose suffering we are trying to prevent or alleviate. I don't know that it will do any good, but it something I can do. I am in need of improvement always.
I do care. I care about the individual and I care about everyone.>
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
When it endangers others and puts them at risk yes, it is very much wrong.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you think that there has to be a law for advising? You might want to look up how they were formed. Having an advisory position is not a legal one. The idea is to have a neutral body that can help with the decision making process.
InChrist
Free4ever
Montana still has 75 mile an hour speed limits on some freeways; was just over there last month.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That was not what he was asking about.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I think what was meant was that, for a time, Montana tried having no speed limit on many sections of freeway?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
That is my understanding as well
Hey, quick question. Does the forum handle "Catholic Crusader" mean anything to you by chance? Just wondering.
Not really,I’m not a Catholic or crusader.
InChrist
Free4ever
You are probably correct about that.
InChrist
Free4ever
Okay, sorry, it was off topic.
Even when it doesn't infringe,
public policy is part of their function.
There's useful infringement at times because
competing rights must be balanced, eg, the
Typhoid Marys' liberty vs the populace's health.
The former should be curbed as little as practical
to guard the latter.
Their licensing board.
I concern myself with everything important.
But it's FOX "News." Murdoch, et al. The tabloid guy. The paper you pick up at the check-out stand to see what the aliens are up to, who they kidnapped today to "probe." Who they impregnated, and where their alien hybrid child is living. How the alien baby is doing, because you want to know that their alien babies are doing well.The Biden administration "ran afoul" of the First Amendment by trying to pressure social media platforms over controversial COVID-19 content, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Friday.
Biden administration violated First Amendment over COVID-19 content on social media, court of appeals rules
The Biden administration violated the First Amendment by trying to "coerce" social media platforms to remove coronavirus content it found problematic, a federal court of appeals ruled.news.yahoo.com
I think not only did they pressure websites -- but also silenced opposing medical voices to maintain a narrative. IMV
Makes one wonder how many platforms were forced to police, or make their own decision, as to what was right and what was wrong violating Constitutional free speech and the conversations that were pertinent to the issue.
It's no better than the Sun.
So it's automatically not true.
Last edited:
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I understand. Note that I'm not looking at the outcome of such regulation. Regulation is arguably effective. But while regulation that preempts action is common, it is rarely harmonious with our primal laws, which establish a government responsive to its citizens' actions, not disruptive of them. Perhaps regulation is never harmonious? We've stopped looking, I believe. We endure so much regulation, we have largely become accustomed to it. And a casual attitude makes it easier for our rights to contract without cause. So I oppose regulation (generally), and call it for what it is, regardless of how popular or effective it might be.
That's just it; government's initial action against Mary was not infringement; it was justice. Once government established probable cause, her right to "business as usual" had to yield to the administration of justice. So there was nothing "balanced."
So not a crime, then.
How is this known?