The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Bobby Jindal Signs Bill Banning Journalists From Identifying Gun Owners

Jindal wants the GOP to stop being "the party of stupid."

Then, he does his best to reinforce that notion.
 
Just_Believe18 said:
Freedom of the Press. You may disagree with what a journalist publishes, but you do not make it illegal. What should be weighted in this debate is journalistic integrity. What is their intention of publishing these names? If it's not for the good of the community, then people should write letters to the editor and put pressure on the newspaper/station to chastise the reporter.

What you don't do is have the state government step in and censor the press with expensive fines and even jail time. Seriously, jail time for publishing names? That's big government right there, Sausy.
Click to expand...
Yes, the punishment IS excessive. Reading more about Bobby Jindal's approach here I do find it overreaching, and chilling in its own way. I just wish liberals would get equally upset with the excesses of journalists who push policy themselves, and the kind of press action like this has been done to shame gun owners, treat them like criminals.. telling the public they have horrible gun owners in their midst... they must be shamed and brought to light even though the vast majority are very responsible people who never would act against the law. If it's a liberal based paper, I really don't think some negative reactions from readers or anyone will do much to keep them from promoting their own particular agenda.
 
cockbrain said:
I like your question because it is, imo, difficult to answer. But consider that the rights that you mention are general concepts and, as general concepts, don't easily translate to specific and simplified examples such as you telling how many inches I've got. Are you telling it as a joke? Are you printing it in a newspaper? Are you testifying in court? You certainly do have the right to tell how many inches I've got unless you lying and that lie hurts my reputation or could be perceived to hurt my reputation. Slander is almost never considered anymore.
Click to expand...

In effect, what the article says is that journalists are being forbidden from posting the names and addresses of people who have applied for Concealed Weapons Permits in the news paper. First of all, there is no need for the information to be posted. Secondly, the fact that you, me, or anyone else has applied for a concealed weapons permit is nobody's business unless the applicant has been convicted of a gun crime in the past, and there are exceptions to the law in those instances.

There is no right to know this information. The public has the right to know that you have a concealed weapons permit to the same extent that the public has the right to know that my cock is 19 inches long and 9 inches in diameter.
 
darden said:
I'm a pretty big proponent of gun control, but I actually like this.

it seems like a bad idea to give criminals a map of houses to rob when they need a gun, and there's the whole right to privacy thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is a law that will make it harder for actual criminals to get firearms.

But it is also a privacy matter -- it's no more the public's business to know who owns a gun than it is to know who engages in anal sex or buys fruit-flavored lube.
 
Just_Believe18 said:
Freedom of the Press. You may disagree with what a journalist publishes, but you do not make it illegal. What should be weighted in this debate is journalistic integrity. What is their intention of publishing these names? If it's not for the good of the community, then people should write letters to the editor and put pressure on the newspaper/station to chastise the reporter.

What you don't do is have the state government step in and censor the press with expensive fines and even jail time. Seriously, jail time for publishing names? That's big government right there, Sausy.
Click to expand...

No, it's not big government. Government's primary job is to protect the rights of the people, and privacy is a big one.

And when essentially giving criminals information on where to get guns for free, thus making the owners victims by invitation, yes -- there should be criminal penalties for such actions, because it's aiding and abetting.
 
.
My original post (#2) is about politicians sucking up to the NRA, and that's all there was to it.
 
mitchymo said:
I don't see any immediate purpose for releasing names of gun owners. It does depend on what is being reported and the relevance etc. It doesn't change the fact however, that this bill is an afront to the freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Like you said, it's about freedom of the press. Whether there is immediate purpose or not, is utterly irrelevant.
 
Kuli, I find it amazing that you are suddenly all for the tyranny of the majority (government) and censorship in the name of "good". That's how fascism worked too, correct? It was all to benefit the people.
 
Rolyo85 said:
Kuli, I find it amazing that you are suddenly all for the tyranny of the majority (government) and censorship in the name of "good". That's how fascism worked too, correct? It was all to benefit the people.
Click to expand...

How is the right to privacy "tyranny of the majority"?

What I am and what I do belong to me, and to me alone. If the press wants to publish something about me, they owe me payment for that. The higher the potential risk, the higher the payment for that publication ought to be.

If they want to publish lists of people with guns, they should be obliged to post a bond in the sum of all the possible payouts of wrongful death suits for not merely anyone who might get killed because suddenly a criminal had been handed the information as to who to attack to get that gun from, but all the possible deaths a criminal might cause by use of that gun -- for starters. And they should write a check to each ad every one whose privacy they are violating, in the sum of at least $10k -- not precluding the possibility of suit for emotional distress.

The tyranny here is that anyone would endorse the violation of inalienable rights by persons hiding behind the facade of standing up for rights. It's the tyrants who invoke "good of the people" -- after all, it must be for the good of the people to make others second-class citizens, to round up entire groups of people depending on their ethnicity, to exclude spome people from voting.

Do you realize that your arguments sound like the fan statements from John Boehner's office? It isn't all that surprising, because you share with the House Republicans a basic belief: that those in power can tell the rest what to do because they -- the PTBs -- say it's to "benefit the people".
 
Kulindahr said:
No, it's not big government. Government's primary job is to protect the rights of the people, and privacy is a big one.

And when essentially giving criminals information on where to get guns for free, thus making the owners victims by invitation, yes -- there should be criminal penalties for such actions, because it's aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...
Plus you're also giving the criminals a great open invitation to raid where the guns AREN'T. It's the left wing version of "yellow journalism" and it's wrong no matter whatever the source, populist right OR left.
 
Kulindahr said:
No, it's not big government. Government's primary job is to protect the rights of the people, and privacy is a big one.

And when essentially giving criminals information on where to get guns for free, thus making the owners victims by invitation, yes -- there should be criminal penalties for such actions, because it's aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...
What about freedom of the press? What about freedom of speech? Those are big ones as well (hint: they're in the FIRST amendment.) This information is public domain information (i.e. not private, no reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.) and so a journalist has every right under their freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to publish this information. Your rights extend only so far as to not violate the rights of others. Thus, your right to privacy doesn't preclude a journalists' right to free speech and freedom of the press. Since a right to privacy is not violated here (this information is in the public record) and since the right to free speech and freedom of the press is being violated here (telling journalists what they can and cannot print when there is no infringing on another's rights) then the law is unconstitutional.

On a side note, you rail against the government until it comes time when they support something you agree with and then you're all for them.
 
T-Rexx said:
Jindal wants the GOP to stop being "the party of stupid."

Then, he does his best to reinforce that notion.
Click to expand...


With that comment, did Piyush Jindal call himself stupid since he's in the GOP?
 
Kulindahr said:
Anyone who would allow so-called creationism to be taught in public schools, other than as a representative of a religious view with no science behind it, is stupid.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but what God created everything? Elohim? Ahura Mazda? Allah? And who's the prophet? Siddharta? Confucius? Muhammad? Jesus? Joseph Smith?

And if Piyush Jindal's parents are from India, are they Sikhs? If not, they the millions of Indians who practice that religion must be wrong according to those who preach christianity.
 
tigerfan482 said:
What about freedom of the press? What about freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

In this same post, you yourself said:

Your rights extend only so far as to not violate the rights of others. Thus, your right to privacy doesn't preclude a journalists' right to free speech and freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the opposite also be true, that the freedom of the press also does not have the right to infringe upon my right to privacy? Also, Why would anyone have a right to know whether or not I have a concealed weapons permit.

Since a right to privacy is not violated here (this information is in the public record) and since the right to free speech and freedom of the press is being violated here (telling journalists what they can and cannot print when there is no infringing on another's rights) then the law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

There is not a violation of the freedom of the press in this instance. Freedom of the press is a protection from the media becoming a propaganda tool of the government. And there is infringement upon the rights of others. Some concealed weapons permit holders are victims of abuse that need to protect their own and their families safety. Publishing their information in the local newspaper would give their abuser there addresses and allow the abuser to begin abusing his victims again.

[QUOTE}On a side note, you rail against the government until it comes time when they support something you agree with and then you're all for them.[/QUOTE]

The same thing could be said about your position. In the threads about the NSA, you are one of the parties saying that the government is protecting the rights of the people. Now, in this instance, you want the government to allow information to be collected and given without any oversight as to who is receiving the information.

Because of the possible safety issues for victims of abuse, and the possible violations of the rights to privacy that I see being a possibility, I feel that there is no reason for this to be allowed. The possible damages that may occur outweigh any possible benefit from this process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top