Recent posts by Ceasar on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man arrested for thought crime in UK

physically jump out in front of passers-by, prevent them from leaving, then aggressively demand

Is that actually what he did, though? If so I can’t defend it. But his tweet doesn’t mention preventing her from leaving. His tweet also doesn’t convey things like tone/volume.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man arrested for thought crime in UK

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Are you sure that’s all covered by their first amendment? That seems crazy excessive.

the US’ right to free speech blanket-allows everything, then individual state laws limit it, by disallowing things like libel or reckless endangerment through speech. That differs on a state by state basis, but it’s up to the states to exclude every little thing – and they risk a challenge that their law is unconstitutional every time they restrict a bit of it.

Eh, sort of. I can say what I like mostly because there’s no law saying I can’t – not because there’s some amendment or law saying I can. In general, everything not prohibited is allowed – not just where speech is concerned, but for everything.

What the First Amendment mostly does is prohibit Congress – and since the 14th Amendment, the states too – from passing those laws saying I can’t, when it comes to speech. In some cases it does also prohibit enforcement of laws, though. If a city required a permit to hold a parade but only enforced it for groups they didn’t agree with, then the city would be violating the First Amendment with their selective enforcement even though the law itself might be valid.

And not all of the laws that DO restrict speech are state-based. For example, copyright law can prohibit you from giving someone else’s speech verbatim. That’s a national law. Anti-fraud laws (prohibiting speech which will defraud someone) exist at both federal and state levels. Incitement laws are mostly state-based, but there are federal laws too – for example, there’s a federal law which prohibits inciting genocide, and another one that prohibits using a telephone/TV/radio/mail/etc to incite a riot.

As far as “risk a challenge that their law is unconstitutional every time they restrict a bit of it.” – yes, if a state (or the federal government) passes a law restricting “a bit” of speech, it’s going to get scrutinized. Laws restricting the time/place/manner of speech are often allowed; you can prohibit the use of bullhorns at 3 AM. (But you can’t prohibit people from speaking in normal volumes on the public sidewalk; the restrictions must be reasonable.) Laws restricting the content of speech, on the other hand, are heavily disfavored; they are only allowed if the speech falls into one of a very limited number of exceptions. Incitement is one, but it’s limited to imminent lawless action – you can’t prohibit someone from speaking because you think it maybe could lead some unknown person to violence against an unknown member of an ethnic group at some unknown point in the future.

Also yes, in much of the US hate speech and discrimination towards whatever ethnic group through speech is perfectly legal. A protected first amendment right.

Hate speech is legal, but most discrimination is actually illegal in the US. You can’t refuse to sell or rent your house to someone because of their ethnicity, for example. I suppose you can exclude them from your private club and say mean things about them, but that’s about it.

But I would question whether “A mealy mouthed reply” even rises to the level of hate speech. As far as insults go it’s pretty tame, and it’s a matter of opinion rather than something that is true or false. And if asking someone “could you explain Brussels?” rises to the level of hate speech, then I think you’ve just unemployed all survey-takers. Asking one person one question one time is not harassment.

Also, just wondering: in the UK, are you allowed to state facts that are unfavorable to a minority group? If the crime rate among Muslims is higher than average, are you allowed to say so? Or would that be considered hate speech? Does it depend on the context? Because that’s the slippery slope I’d worry about. If you can’t talk about a problem that an ethnic or religious group is having, it can make it harder to solve that problem. And if there’s too much discretion involved in the enforcement, it can lead to the silencing of political opposition.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Football Saga / Feedback and Suggestions

The club chat isn’t updating the online members when people come on. Right now I’m chatting with someone but the list is still showing me as the only person online.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

Hmm, seems I misposted, so I’ll just edit that so it actually shows a score…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Could solar panels drain all of the energy from the sun?

Retired science teacher Jane Mann feared the proposed solar ranch could hinder photosynthesis — the process of converting light energy from the sun into chemical energy for fuel — in the area and stop plants from growing.

Technically true, for those areas directly shaded by the panels… but somehow you get the feeling that’s not what she meant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

I’ll probably try again later, for for now, this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

And, to Magicant, you can use the <b> tag to get bold.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

A score.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Pel, 50th KG Tournament THE PEL-END

Well, it’s “a score”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / 7x7 - The 49th Kongregate community gaming tournament (Fin. Congratz to ShawnerSSS and dederteee! ~ Post-Tourney Discussion)

Eh, why not. I’ll register. And drop me a message if you still need spreadsheeters and I’ll give you my Google email.

(Protector) Legendary Protector – My 1st hard badge.
(Pandemic 2) President Madagascar Assassin – My 1st impossible badge.
(Mardek 3) Psychosomatic Exhaustion – My 2nd impossible.
(The Necronomicon) Necronomiconquerer – My 3rd impossible.
(Vector Runner) Tunnel Vision – My 4th impossible.
(Oroboros) Seeker Slicer – This was one of the hardest “easy” badges, and getting this allowed me (at the time) to have ALL the easy badges.
(Zening) Zenner – Only 2817 people have this badge, making it the least-earned badge I have, and I managed to get it without a human team – I had to deal with AI-run allies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

The discussion is about if it’s ethical to hand out “Peace Prizes” for things not accomplished yet.

I wouldn’t say it’s unethical. You can give your prize to whoever you like. I would say it’s stupid, if you want your award to mean anything.

Obama is directly responsible for the shameful migrant situation in the middle east.

I give him indirect responsibility only. The ones directly responsible are the ones who are actually destroying cities.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Ceasar, our Constitution directly specifies that ONLY the House of Representatives can impeach the President

Yes, and that state’s Constitution likely specifies that ONLY the state legislature can impeach the official in question here. Same thing.

As far as criminal contempt goes, you could go that route, but you’re not going to get a federal contempt trial completed before the legislature is back in session. She’d be able to request a new judge, since the old one would be considered biased, and that alone would take some time. She’d also have the right to seek new counsel and enough time to get them up to speed on her case, on the grounds that this would now be a criminal case distinct from the current civil case. And would that even remove her from office, or would she continue to hold the office from jail? Criminal contempt, unlike civil contempt, cannot be cured with compliance, so she’d have no incentive to resign.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
I think there are probably some opportunities to temporarily remove her from office until the state legislature convenes in a few months

I really don’t think the judicial branch can, or should, temporarily remove her from office. It’s a checks and balances thing – the legislature is the body with the power of impeachment, and the judicial branch can’t simply take that power because they think the legislature is being too slow. The legislature COULD hold a special session, after all, if they deemed it important enough.

Just tossing in some thoughts here … ya can toss them out if ya want. lol

The U.S. Attorney General (Justice Dept.) and/or a Fed Judge might be able to “step in” due to the nature of this situation = denial of the Civil Rights (even though this isn’t yet a fact for most states) given in the Constitution … which might interestingly enough, set a precedent. <<< that silver lining I mentioned earlier which would be a great back-firing for the hateful far-right’s cause to keep them damn fags in their place.
.


insubordination

Utterly impossible for an elected official. She doesn’t have a boss she could be insubordinate to.

I’m thinking probably her boss is the Constitution … state and federal. Basically stated: her boss is We the People. Those are who she SERVES; she has sworn to uphold the Constitution. That is why I’m saying a Fed. judge (representing the law of the land) would represent us as being “boss”.

I hope we find some answers to these points.
It might be some good life-lessons in civics for us Americans …. ones that seem to be severely lacking and even more so needed.

I am sure that various rulings have found that Obama has, repeatedly, taken some action or another that has violated the Constitution and deprived someone of their rights. I would not want to set a precedent that would allow some federal judge to remove him from office.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

US Labor Laws stipulate that a person can be fired only for very specific reasons.

That depends on the state; in many a person can be fired for any reason unless it’s for an illegal reason (like firing someone for being black) or there’s a contract involved. But, as you say, ordinary labor laws don’t apply here anyway.

I think there are probably some opportunities to temporarily remove her from office until the state legislature convenes in a few months

I really don’t think the judicial branch can, or should, temporarily remove her from office. It’s a checks and balances thing – the legislature is the body with the power of impeachment, and the judicial branch can’t simply take that power because they think the legislature is being too slow. The legislature COULD hold a special session, after all, if they deemed it important enough.

insubordination

Utterly impossible for an elected official. She doesn’t have a boss she could be insubordinate to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Legally, yes ’those people are married"

Without the certificate, ARE they? If that was the case, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, what’s to prevent Davis from refusing sign off on marriage certificates from other religions because they don’t fit her ‘biblical definition’ of marriage? (the logic here being, “If you heathens aren’t getting married in a Christian church, then you aren’t really married!”)

Marriage predates Christianity; Jesus turned water into wine at what was presumably a Jewish wedding. What’s to prevent her? The same thing that’s preventing her from doing what she’s doing now, I guess.

When a judge declares a man actually standing in front of him to be dead, then that makes me a lot more sympathetic to any clerk who may want to go against the judge and refuse to issue (or revoke) a death certificate. Judges pretty much get immunity from everything no matter how ridiculous; if Davis was a judge, she wouldn’t be in jail for her actions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Ceasar:

Is she going to refuse to issue a birth certificate with a male listed as the mother?

Thanks for the reminder that because we are going to reach the point that’s possible eventually, when we do, we’ll likely go through something like this whole media circus again. Purely because someone in a position of authority will object to a male giving birth to a child, “because it offends my religion”.

Do you own stock in antidepressive manufacturers Ceasar? Their value is going to climb with any more thoughts like that…

Hmm. But, one could argue, “those people aren’t really married”. It’s much harder to argue “that guy didn’t give birth to that child.” Maybe it’s offensive to someone, but it happened, and there’s no point in not issuing the certificate it any more than it would make sense to refuse to issue a birth certificate to a child of a single mother, or refusing to issue a death certificate to a murder victim because he died before his time.

One could also argue that documenting the marriage is, in a sense, what makes the person married, but documenting a birth or death is not what makes the person alive or dead.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Last point, given all of the many duties a CC has, how many of them might ALSO end up being a conflict-of-service for Gays or whoever for whatever?

Is she going to refuse to issue a birth certificate with a male listed as the mother? That… might actually be appropriate, since it’s supposed to list the biological mother, I think. Anyway, I don’t think she’d have any objection to charging property taxes to gays, or writing their death certificates, or registering them to vote. But even if she did, gays don’t make up 83% of the population, so she’d still have work to do. If nothing else, she’s likely in charge of the office, with all of the managerial duties that entails.

While this does support the point that Davis could shuffle off the marriage licensing to a deputy, SHE DIDN’T DO THAT

Right, that’s why I’m not on her side here. In a similar case, there was a judge somewhere who asked to be taken off of the marriage officiation rotation, and was refused. I mean, officiating marriages is probably the easiest thing on a judge’s list of duties, and there are plenty of judges in his jurisdiction, and judges sometimes recuse themselves from cases for various reasons anyway, so there was no reason why he could not be accommodated. That guy I would support. But Davis? She was given the opportunity to pass the duty to someone else. Sorry, but that has to be good enough for her.

That is why I see her as a bad person because she very likely doesn’t “follow the Bible” in the many other areas that are even more relative than “men lying w/ men”.

You see her as a bad person because you think she doesn’t follow the Bible in other areas? That seems like pure speculation, and it’s probably irrelevant. If she were male, would you also be speculating about how she’s probably in the closet? And nothing says she has to take just the Bible as her source of morality.

But yeah, I do wonder if her attorneys are working in her best interests, or if they’re working in their own best interests. Maybe they’re an activist group with an agenda, but if they take a case, they have an obligation to their client even if it goes against their group’s work, and if they can’t handle that, they shouldn’t have her as a client. If they’re advising her to be in contempt then they are probably breaking their ethical obligations.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

Also, how is not infringing people’s rights a crime?

I never said it wasn’t a crime. I said she wasn’t convicted of it, and therefore the judge cannot put her in jail for the purpose of punishment at this time.

You’d need an actual trial, with a jury and everything. I’m not saying you can or can’t do that – I’m not sure if the “deprivation of liberty under color of law” statutes would apply here or not (although I tend to read vague criminal statutes in favor of the defendant, and getting this wrong would make her a legitimate martyr) – I’m just saying it hasn’t been done to her yet and you can’t punish her without a conviction, no matter how guilty you think she is. And if you went that route, she’d be out on bail in the meantime, so it’s not going to help anyone trying to get married now. The legislature would be in session to impeach her or change the law long before a trial could be scheduled.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is ObamaCare opposed so strongly?

So if a large number of people happen to need extra care in a period, you’re SOL?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Rosa Parks: The Kim Davis of Black People??

It doesn’t make financial sense to hire somebody who is unwilling to fulfill their whole job description

But that’s nowhere near “their whole job description.” I’m sure the clerks do a heck of a lot more than marriage licenses. Considering the number of deputy clerks, there should be plenty of other work for her to do. And it doesn’t take long at all to shove an application onto someone else’s desk. It would be similar to a grocery store accommodating someone with a religious objection to alcohol by having someone else ring up the alcohol – they actually have to do this anyway if a minor is working a register, at least in my state. The fact that a person in a grocery store doesn’t deal with alcohol does not significantly reduce their workload or create an undue burden, and neither would a person in the county clerk’s office not dealing with marriage licenses.