WuWei
187
That is a very limited view of a principle.
Samm
188
Yes, technically you are right, but the fact remains that imposing bureaucratic restrictions on people’s rights without due process is prior restraint on those rights. @WuWei is exactly right, if you have to apply for and receive permission from the government to avail yourself of a right, then you do not have that right at all. That means you are wrong about prior restraint only applying to the free speech aspect of the First Amendment. The same principle allies to all Constitutional Rights.
2 Likes
WuWei
189
The story is the government was created at least in part to protect these rights, not infringe on them.
What a myth!
1 Like
Samm
191
You forgot to include …
“That means you are wrong about prior restraint only applying to the free speech aspect of the First Amendment.”
Ooooh, so close.
I am not wrong about it because you are misusing the phrase, repurposing it to use beyond censorship and the 1A.
You might call a truck a Subaru Outback because it can carry cargo, has 4 wheels, and 4 wheel drive. But redefining ‘truck’ does not change the fact that an Outback is a SUV, not a Truck.
Samm
193
You are wrong. Prior restraint on speech is exactly the same principle as requiring a person meet a standard and get a permit from the government to acquire a gun. The fact is that is, even the current NICS background check is prior restraint, but it is aimed at weeding out people who have gone through due process, so the fact that everyone has to do it becomes more tolerable as far as “infringement” goes.
It may be the same principle, but prior restraint refers to the 1A and censorship. You are repurposing the term in order to use it incorrectly.
Samm
195
No … You are stubbornly adhering to the legal definition to deny that the principle applies to all Rights. The point here is not the definition of “prior restraint,” it is that @bigtwnvin’s proposal is patently unconstitutional by the same principle as prior restraint.
1 Like
Yes…I may be stubborn, but I am also correct. You…are not.
Prior restraint refers to the 1A and censorship.
1 Like
Samm
197
Just stop. Nobody likes a technical argument when they are so wrong in principle.
Then maybe “nobody” should stop misusing the phrase. Prior restraint refers to the 1A and censorship.
WuWei
201
No, that is just the context in which it has been legislated. The concept is much broader and can be applied to any right.
It is closely related to the philosophy of due process.
4 Likes
Can’t really misuse the phrase because it’s legalese which means that its application can be much more broad than originally or even repeatedly used
Here is a fun read that breaks down some of it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/21/the-first-amendment-guide-to-the-second-amendment/
1 Like
Well the Jackass is the Party symbol. Appropriately enough.
2 Likes
