Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAEBN
It's tough in the written word when using the word "you" and exclamatory remarks about stupidity to distance oneself. One never is quite sure if it's the personal "you" or the generic grouping "you" iteration.
I think it's bone fucking stupid, as a whole, that many of the regulatory statutes that exist, do. I think it's dumb that I can't go to a gun range and practice shooting in a position I'm most likely to use. I think it's asinine that I have to show my ID to go to a movie or certain stores.
However, in this particular case, I don't see it as a separate ruling but as a continuation of existing guidelines.
I have concerns about the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression, as I have repeatedly expressed elsewhere on this very same board. I have concerns about Max and Stagliano's cases creating an artificial stopping place that can easily be pushed back. I've made several comments discussing personal preference and comfort versus what is/ should be allowed under free speech.
I think arguing that full disclosure as a legal norm is a limiting factor is a straw man of an argument. I get your concerns about limits to speech, but I think this particular ruling is not one that should be a worry.
|
Yes, any language that uses "you, you, and you" as the three parts to mean very separate things is a poor means of communication.
For future reference, assume I'm speaking in the third person, as I rarely make personal attacks. If I'm attacking you personally, I'll be sure and let you know.
:-)
As for the rest...we'll simply have to disagree. I do think it's important, as I look ahead to that time, sometime in the future, when the FBI knocks on my door. This is one m,ore tool in their box to "charge stack" in an attempt to convict me of something....anything.