AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

The Blog of Rights.

posted 12/7/2009 6:10:10 PM |
3 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: blogs, blog, blogging, shadow
  ShadowMale

It seems these days many people assume that a blog is written soley for others to comment on. As though the blog was written just so the reader could express their opinion, uncensored. The problem is, a blog is not a forum for the reader, but for the writer. Weblogs were created to allow one to express THEMSELF, and should they want to add to, or allow input from others, they may do so.

This in no way implies that allowing comments makes readers entitled to freedom of speech on someone else's blog. Afterall, it is not the readers opinion that the blog repersents, but rather a collection of the writers opinion, and any opinion they feel adds value to the discussion (if there even is a discussion). Also, the writer doesn't have to allow comments at all. This may reduce the amount of readers, as again, they feel it is their right to express themself on YOUR blog, but sometimes... SOMETIMES, people aren't interested in arguing their point because the point was simply a passing thought. Instead of spending time monitoring a blog to keep undesired trolls from flooding the comments with useless off topic garbage, it is easier to disable comments.

Some people despise this so much, they resort to mudslinging, and name calling, and feel the need to recite the freedom of speach amendment that doesn't apply to blogs. News flash for the Bill of Rights posters, freedom of speech is a right afforded to you by the government guaranteeing that the government can not take away your right to free speech. However, what most fail to understand is that no where does it say that the government can tell an individual that they must allow people to use their personal property (a blog is intellectual property automatically under copyright laws) as a medium for free speech. Also, some maintain that the Constitution does not limit free speech. At first glance this is true, however the founding documents of this nation include more then just the Constitution.

Constitution:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

This Amendment has been trampled on many times by Congress. (1) Not only can the government not tell you what or who to worship, nor can they tell you not to. For all those in favor of removing religion from schools, they only legal action the government can take is to tell them they can't force children to pray, but legally they CANNOT tell them they can't pray in school. The idea of seperation of church and state is misguided. Once you start letting the government have a say one way or another, you will create a monster you cannot control. So for both sides, it is in your best interest that this be returned the way it is supposed to be. I explain this because it is fundemental in how the First Amendment is set up. (2) It goes on to explain that this arrangement applies to speech, press, and the right to assemble peaceably. The last word is key here.

Peaceably means that you are not stepping on others right to the pursuit of happyness. Before you jump up and say it doesn't say so in the Constitution, you are right. However, it does say it in the Declaration of Independence. Now you might be thinking, "but the D.I. isn't the Constitution??" No, but Amendment nine connects the two. When interpreting the legal aspects of the Constitution, one must consider the context in which it was written, and the founding document that explains the context the best is the Declaration of Independence.

Constitution:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This means that just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't your right. There are certain rights that the founding fathers felt were basic, and need not be addressed in detail by the Constitution. Amendment Nine references these, albeit fails to cite their origins. I feel this is because the founding fathers truely thought the citizens and congress would have the common sense to know they were already included in the D.I., which in itself is a legal document containing the basics of structure to the nation.

The reference is this from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In trampling ones unalienable right to the pursuit of happyness, you are infringing on ones 9th Amendment right to rights beyond what the Constitution declares, and this can be seen as a direct threat to the 1st Amendment by ignoring the stipulation of peaceably.

Finally, the 10th Amendement has to be taken into acount as well.

Constitutions says:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means if the Constitution doesn't say it, then the federal government can't do it without the states, and the people. Anything added to, taken away from, or miscontrued by the government in concerns to the Constitution is a clear violation of the Constitution in my eyes.

One final note, the Judicial is not legally allowed to create new laws, but only to define current ones. However, in practice, it has been known to over step its bounds many times. While many civil and criminal laws are shaped in this way, and to an extent has legal merit, in no circumstance should the Judicial branch ever be allowed to redefine the Constitution by allowing, or denying unalienable rights such as those set forth in the 1st Amendement. Again I say, this is to the benefit to both the religious and non-religious alike. You may think you won the war by having the government ban prayer, but in reality you have opened the door for them to tell you what you can and cannot do. It's a double edged sword. The door will swing both ways.

Once you drive that wedge in, it will be hard or impossible to drive it back out. And once it is in, you are at the mercy of the people in control of the wedge.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by ShadowMale:
I'm getting married!!!!!
A circle of jerks... it's a fact.
A penis size blog with a solution.
People make me laugh, even when they don't know it...
Yep... yet another football blog...
So who likes sex?
Less politics, and more sex...
The search for ET.
People and their asses. - A practical guide to cyber bullying.
Random thoughts on oral sex.
The AMD song
What makes you say OH?
The Blog of Rights.
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pre-Game Chant..
News headline: AMD supports Trolls.
Politics through a mirror.
Hey Boudreaux!
Happy Thanksgiving!
I can't help it. I know the team sucks.... but I just have too....
And once again....
Political lesson of the day...
Yea.... so I have to do it again....
A day late, but thought I'd just say....
And now for deep thoughts from the bottom of the well.


Comments:

post a comment!

sugarnspice005

Dec 7 @ 7:21PM  
The Judicial Branch:

The Judicial Branch

The third branch of government is the Judicial branch. The Judiciary is made up of courts -- Supreme, Circuit, the magistrate (local) and municipal (city) courts. The Judicial branch interprets the laws.

The state judges are elected by the citizens rather than being appointed. They also run for their office as members of a political party.

The duties of the judicial branch include:

* Interpreting state laws;
* Settling legal disputes;
* Punishing violators of the law;
* Hearing civil cases;
* Protecting individual rights granted by the state constitution;
* Determing the guilt or innocence of those accused of violating the criminal laws of the state;
* Acting as a check upon the legislative and executive branches of state government.

The Supreme Court of Appeals is the highest court in West Virginia and supervises the lower courts. It is comprised of five judges who are elected for twelve year terms by the voters. The Supreme Court is required to meet twice a year, in January and in September, and may hold special terms when necessary. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine if state laws and actions of state officials, including the Governor, are constitutional. Laws and executive orders cannot be enforced if they violate the state constitution.

Most cases brought before the Supreme Court are appeals that have been tried in the circuit or magistrate courts. Once a decision has been made by the Supreme Court that is the final decision, with the exception of conflicts between state and federal laws, which may be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Of the five Supreme Court justices, one is selected to be the Chief Justice. The selection process is a rotation between the five justices, each who serve as the chief justice for one year. The Chief Justice's duties include submitting a budget to the Legislature, and according to the state constitution, the Supreme Court will be appropriated for whatever amount it requests. The Chief Justice also assigns justices to write opinions and decisions of the Court.

You are right, the Judicial branch of government does not make laws, but, it interprets laws. Also settles legal disputes. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest Appellate court, and takes cases with a "Constitutional question". Also, just because one petitions the U.S. Supreme Court does not mean their case will be heard. Cases are accepted at the discretion of the justices.
whisperingcomet

Dec 7 @ 9:06PM  
nice blog...good job, and welcome to the blogs
theSkwirl

Dec 7 @ 10:02PM  
Wow, that's the long version. Nicely said.
shewolf53

Dec 8 @ 12:32AM  
I have no problem with freedom of speech in schools as long as it is not being used to push religious views or political agenda down someone's throat. I do not think the doctrine of any particular religion should be posted in a public building paid for by the tax payers as it does not equally represent everyone. I have no problem with people saying what they want but I reserve the right not to have to listen to them. You can exercise your rights all day long, just as long as your rights do not prevent me from exercising mine as well. When it comes to freedom of speech I feel we would all be better off if people would use it properly and not abuse it and use it as an excuse for being assholes. JMHO on the matter.
riverman737

Dec 8 @ 1:07AM  
well done here is my point :

who gives a shit let it go
ShadowMale

Dec 8 @ 3:14AM  
I have no problem with freedom of speech in schools as long as it is not being used to push religious views or political agenda down someone's throat.

And that was addressed in the blog. It works both ways.

I do not think the doctrine of any particular religion should be posted in a public building paid for by the tax payers as it does not equally represent everyone.
And just as telling people to pray is unconstitutional, so is telling them not to.
They should not set a time for prayer, but at the same time, they can't tell you not to at all. This is the double edged sword that is to be avoided. Otherwise you are trampling rights either way. The best policy, which is the only constitutionally legal policy, is to not cite a law one way or another.

You can exercise your rights all day long, just as long as your rights do not prevent me from exercising mine as well.
And that was addressed as well.

well done here is my point :

who gives a shit let it go
Not well done... why should I let it go? Why do you not give a shit? Why even bother posting at all if you don't care about rights?

Why? It's ok, you don't have to answer. It's your right. Now go troll elsewhere. You post useless crap again and you're blocked.
TwistAndShout

Dec 8 @ 5:29AM  
I've noticed in your blogs that you nearly always feel the need to go into comments and respond directly to anyone who you feel may have disagreed with you, no matter how mildly. Also, I noticed that at the end of the blog, you almost always end up blocking someone.

If you had more confidence in what you say, you wouldn't feel the need to do those things.

RevDocLove

Dec 8 @ 7:40AM  
Well done mon ami Greenie to you
As for river rat,I see he's back to try to attempt TP's bullshit..
Twist and Shout..Blocking is just a means to stop
annoying bullshit comments that really have no relevance to the subject..
Itsasecret13

Dec 8 @ 9:36AM  
Excellent Shadow Male! Absolutely top notch. What amazes me is the comments praising you for this that never observe or go along with it when they disagree with someone's blog. You addresses this nicely, but perhaps a bit to subtle for them to understand. I am and will always be a student and believer in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I just wish more understood it and did not try to reshape it to fit their desires. Some seem to think of freedom of speech is good as long as it agrees with them. Anything else should be shut down immediately and ridiculed. Others think they are above it and anything they do to infringe on others will not come back to bite them. Arrogant stupidity and out Senate, House, and Presidency is demonstrating this very well at this time with total disregard for the Constitution.

Thank you for this. Again Excellent!
ShadowMale

Dec 8 @ 4:20PM  
I've noticed in your blogs that you nearly always feel the need to go into comments and respond directly to anyone who you feel may have disagreed with you, no matter how mildly. Also, I noticed that at the end of the blog, you almost always end up blocking someone.

If you had more confidence in what you say, you wouldn't feel the need to do those things.
You didn't read the blog did you? If you had, and understood it, you'd understand why.

This isn't the Democratic State of Shadow here buddy, this it the Totalitarian Regime of Shadow. Don't like it, feel free to roam elsewhere.

No, no, seriously though, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. People like you think its your RIGHT to post how you want on anyone's blog. So all I ask is for you to cite the source of where that right comes from.... I'm waiting.
TwistAndShout

Dec 8 @ 5:46PM  
People like you think its your RIGHT to post how you want on anyone's blog. So all I ask is for you to cite the source of where that right comes from.... I'm waiting.

I never suggested that anyone has a right to post on your blog. I merely made an observation. You have a right to be sensitive to critcism, or to even block critical remarks out altogether. Most people don't, however.
ShadowMale

Dec 8 @ 8:36PM  
I never suggested that anyone has a right to post on your blog. I merely made an observation. You have a right to be sensitive to critcism, or to even block critical remarks out altogether. Most people don't, however.

You are incorrect. Most are accused of doing so quite often. The point of my blog is that it is the authors blog, and they can do as they wish.

I don't block critisism, but rather people who aren't contributing value to the blog. For instance, having someone post "your ugly" on a blog about photography wouldn't really add to the bog now would it? What is the point in being mad at the owner of the blog for deleting those comments?

You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you're going to convince people here that I block anyone that disagrees. The only people that really buy that are the people that post stupid comments on others blogs in the first place. Imagine that.
TwistAndShout

Dec 8 @ 8:50PM  
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think you're going to convince people here that I block anyone that disagrees. The only people that really buy that are the people that post stupid comments on others blogs in the first place. Imagine that.

No, I don't think you block everyone who disagrees, nor do I care whether I convince anyone. But I think anyone going back and reading your blogs will see that you tend to quickly take a very beligerent and defensive tone with anyone who disagrees with you. It's not a free speech issue - it's civility issue.
sugarnspice005

Dec 8 @ 8:57PM  
But I think anyone going back and reading your blogs will see that you tend to quickly take a very beligerent and defensive tone with anyone who disagrees with you.

I've only seen him get "belligerent and defensive" when he's been attacked. Other than that, he is usually quite fun to chat with.
Wordsofwit

Dec 8 @ 9:28PM  
Let me be an honest ass. Your points are very well articulated, but it is a rehash of a subject that I have heard for years about and, respectfully am kind of burned out on.
ShadowMale

Dec 8 @ 11:12PM  
I've only seen him get "belligerent and defensive" when he's been attacked. Other than that, he is usually quite fun to chat with.

Well... paint a man in a corner and some shits gonna happen. I'm not a fight starter, but I'm not one that lets someone kick them around either.

Let me be an honest ass. Your points are very well articulated, but it is a rehash of a subject that I have heard for years about and, respectfully am kind of burned out on.

Then why did you bother reading it? And then felt the need to verbalize the fact that you don't like reading these kind of blogs? Hmm... sometimes I wonder about you WoW, but thanks for compliment.

Now I feel the need to block someone...
StraddleMyNose

online now!
Jan 26 @ 12:12AM  

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB02
The Blog of Rights.