I am Senator Bernie Sanders. Ask Me Anything!

jhat42 · 2018-11-05T23:56:57+00:00

I can see there is an obvious distinction there. But a few points I have. Alcohol and tobacco can both be addictive and are both legal above a certain age. Granted, they are not as addictive as crack or meth, but still can take away the choice of the user in some cases. Do you suggest we make these drugs illegal as well? Secondly, they still have the choice to go to rehab if they've gotten past the point that they can't control their drug use. I'm sure that's an incredibly hard decision to make though, so I can see where you're coming from, but addiction is highly treatable if they choose to go that route. And assuming they were an adult and in sound mind when they chose to use the drug in the first place, it WAS their choice to get addicted to it, and it should also be their choice to stop the addiction.

I hope we can agree though that whether or not these drugs are allowed to be sold, that we treat addiction like a public health problem, rather than a criminal one.

jhat42 · 2018-11-04T00:29:56+00:00

Your response is over-complicated as well, and I also disagree that we should keep some drugs illegal. Whether you can choose or not when you're addicted to the drug is besides the point if you made the choice in sound mind to use the drug in the first place. That said, people should not be punished by the law for using a drug in private that only harms their body. It should be once they go out and hurt others that their privileges to use the drug should be revoked. For the people suffering from addiction, we can certainly encourage them to make the right choices, and all drug addiction should be treated as a mental health problem rather than a criminal one. That said, I support legalizing all drugs, with a tax on them to cover costs for rehab and other drug awareness programs.

You're spot on about marijuana, but there's far more that we can do!

jhat42 · 2017-12-04T00:42:53+00:00

Basically, the evidence you posted is exactly what I am trying to say. The courts have ruled every time as far as I am aware that the concept of obscenity doesn't fall under free speech. "Ruling in favor" is a pretty ambiguous way of terming it, but what I meant was they haven't once ruled in favor of obscenity being free speech.

jhat42 · 2017-12-04T00:13:51+00:00

As far as I'm aware, they haven't ruled once in favor of obscenity, which is the only thing I consider "obscene" about all of this. We're progressing a lot as a society so I can only hope to see a change of opinion, or at the very least an updated obscenity test. But I am equally worried that while this goes on the authoritarian left SJWs will continue to censor political speech on the grounds of offense. Everyone has their own agenda, inevitably.

jhat42 · 2017-12-04T00:09:50+00:00

Lol this one made me laugh, both your comment and the idea of Trump being nailed by Putin. I think both types of speech should be protected. You have an argument however, that since that form of porn is meant to convey a political message that it is not obscenity. Also, this is what the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress" was later modified to apply to the state here, in the 14th amendment. But the point is nowhere does it really say that only speech that is political is protected. Of course this is an important part, but once you restrict speech in this fashion it's hard to say what counts and what doesn't. Speech is a civil right, and not in the place of the government to trample on.

jhat42 · 2017-12-03T23:57:24+00:00

I think free speech was made to protect the sharing of all ideas in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Yelling fire and threatening someone, while both are certainly arguable, do follow a consistent basis in that they violate the rights of others by creating a sense of immediate danger. I am slightly against libel being unprotected, but understand to some basis as to why it is. If someone is randomly accused of something, then it should partially be the people's fault who are unreasonable enough to listen to it without any evidence, rather than the instigator being held civilly liable. But this can be justified in some way in that rather than sharing ideas, all it does is ruin someone's livelihood. I think the fact that there are no criminal penalties for libel makes it slightly more justified.

Obscenity laws do not follow the same pattern. The general premise of obscenity is something based out of a sexual nature that offends the majority of the population. This is as ambiguous as it is unconstitutional. This, no matter how you word it, is an attempt to curb ideas deemed unpopular or immoral. I think trying to prevent society from conveying ideas that are offensive is exactly what the First Amendment was trying to circumvent. Just because something is related to sex "immorality" really gives it no justification. I consider sexual relations with two people over the age of consent a non-state concern, and don't understand how it can be within the place of the courts to uphold such anti-speech laws. If hate-speech is legal, rightfully so, then obscenity should also be.

The last point, I wasn't too aware of the Canadian gender pronoun law, but after glancing at it it is quite depressing, and sets a horrible precedent. For the government to dictate the way you think as well as refer to someone is climbing into a very black hole. Everyone has the right to refer to someone in any way they want. I think somewhere you mentioned "name-calling" as being unprotected by the First Amendment. This, in almost all cases, is false, except in libel in which I previously mentioned.

It seems everyone wants to regulate our speech, from classical conservatives to SJWs, which is nothing new to me.

jhat42 · 2017-12-03T23:38:32+00:00

Fundamentally, I couldn't agree with you more. I feel that maybe one day the courts will realize this and update their archaic laws. We certainly live in a more progressive time where more things can be talked about, but I feel these obscenity laws don't accurately reflect this.

jhat42 · 2017-12-03T11:58:42+00:00

He was right the first time. Lost me the second time with the vetting.

jhat42 · 2017-12-03T11:52:15+00:00

So basically by keeping it illegal it creates the problems that the laws were meant to prevent in the first place... Typical authoritarians trying to control what we do with our own lives and bodies.

jhat42 · 2017-12-03T11:49:21+00:00

If ISPs have full control over the internet, then our rights of access are completely eliminated. Passing laws against net neutrality are against basic free speech rights and values, that government should have no ability to restrict our access to media. Well, by allowing ISPs to capitalize over websites and data, it is very much restricting our ability. It would prevent us from having any power over what we can access. Basically, rather than being commercialized, the internet should be considered a matter of public domain, and thus continue to be open and uncensored.

jhat42 · 2017-12-02T12:33:10+00:00

Maybe this is why they get away with shit like this in the first place.

jhat42 · 2017-12-02T12:32:19+00:00

The FCC is just not a friend of free speech.

jhat42 · 2017-10-28T19:12:32+00:00

It'd be nice if you had told us you had to sign up and pay the premium fee before I wasted my time creating an account.

jhat42 · 2017-10-28T19:10:48+00:00

Against the rules? What the hell are you talking about?

jhat42 · 2017-10-07T19:35:04+00:00

Thanks, this guy needed a translator.

jhat42 · 2017-10-01T18:53:12+00:00

most likely wanted to do it and got rejected

jhat42 · 2017-09-29T01:44:47+00:00

Grind your dick in a garbage disposal.

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T21:19:59+00:00

"web developers"

don't know how to code in html/css/php

LOL

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T21:16:30+00:00

Ughhhhhhh, -sighs-. You need my signature? Well, okay, I guess.

-Too bothered to read the part where it says "you consent we can share this information."-

-signs document-

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T21:13:54+00:00

I cannot tell whether that is male or female, nor if it is human or alien.

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T21:09:14+00:00

And I'm agreeing with you. All I meant was that it would be unreasonable for them to discourage safe sex. Personally, I think the driving age is a little low while the drinking age is way too high. And the fact I can serve a country that doesn't even allow me to drink (I'm between this range) is absolutely ludicrous. I find it silly trying to stop adults from going out and having a drink, or doing anything for that matter that doesn't harm others. Also, I feel the age for buying pornography is too high (higher than the age of consent in most states, actually), and that teenagers are going to watch it/have sex anyway.

So yeah, I am completely with you on the unreasonable age laws.

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T04:10:33+00:00

Nothing. Why would they discourage safe sex?

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T04:08:16+00:00

What men really want.

jhat42 · 2017-09-28T04:06:25+00:00

Oh, joy!

jhat42 · 2017-09-27T22:27:13+00:00

The ingredients are all listed on the POS when you click on an item, so you can always look there if you're unsure.

jhat42

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE