Freedom of speech limited by punishment [Archive]

pgwenthold

27th June 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I am in a program called CARE, and the first four weeks involve being on house arrest.

An officer comes every day to make sure I am following the rules of the program or such, making sure my anklet is still on, etc etc...

However, one of the rules involve this: You cannot have any violent or "Parental Advisory" music CDs, and you cannot have any posters which depict drugs (this may even include posters supporting the legalization of certain drugs, a purely political point).

I understand that I am a minor and my rights are not protected like they should be (they just don't care, and it keeps things convenient for them, especially with their agendas).

I can see the reason for the censorship, but still, I dislike censorship... if the government, under any circumstances, can prevent you from expressing certain ideas or listening to them, what stops them from doing this when you are not under any government program?

Yes, it is within the grounds of the legal system to remove certain rights during sentancing for convicted criminals.

If this program was part of your sentancing, then you are subject to it.

Tmy

27th June 2003, 08:16 AM

You had all those rights. You blew it when you got in trouble. Whatd you do anyway.

Hey, does downloaded music count. Its not like it has the warning sticker.

Graham

27th June 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
You had all those rights. You blew it when you got in trouble. Whatd you do anyway.

Hey, does downloaded music count. Its not like it has the warning sticker.

Apparently he attacked his mom - isn't that nice?

Tmy

27th June 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Apparently he attacked his mom - isn't that nice?

Sooooo they then force him into house arrest so hes stuck wh mom 24/7. Sounds like a good idea.

Who do we blame.

It must have been the rap music. Video games maybe. Oh I know, Mtv those damn Real World shows are driving kids to violence!!!

Graham

27th June 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Sooooo they then force him into house arrest so hes stuck wh mom 24/7. Sounds like a good idea.

Who do we blame.

It must have been the rap music. Video games maybe. Oh I know, Mtv those damn Real World shows are driving kids to violence!!!

:D

Tmy

27th June 2003, 08:41 AM

I just cant get over this.

If i ever dared to look at my mom crosseyed, my dad would backhand me across the state.

We're too easy on kids. Its the Oprha-fying of our country. We're all wusses. You cant hit your kids, you cant have toy guys. We have to talk about our feelings, men cry at the drop of a hat. Remeber after 911, all the talk show hosts crying. How embarrassing.

No wonder we're under attack!

UnrepentantSinner

27th June 2003, 08:45 AM

You do the crime.
You do the time.

When you finally go through with your murderous fantasies with your mom et. al., please don't come here crying about not being able to listen to 50 Cent and Eminem.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

27th June 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

Who do we blame.

It must have been the rap music. Video games maybe. Oh I know, Mtv those damn Real World shows are driving kids to violence!!!

Where is this place called Violence that the kids get driven to? Is it in one of the lower 48? Is it in Afghanistan? because that was where John Walker. Lindh was found. Do these devices wisk them away there?

blackpriester

27th June 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
You had all those rights. You blew it when you got in trouble.

I concur 100%.
Freedom is as much privilege as it is responsibility.
You seem to have shown that you can't handle it without infringing on the liberty and rights ot OTHER people.
So it is reasonable to take certain freedoms away from you.

MRC_Hans

27th June 2003, 10:03 AM

Dark Cobra is back. Oh well....

Hans

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 10:39 AM

It doesn't affect me, as I do not own a single music CD or poster.

While certain rights can, of course, be taken away, I see no reason why freedom of expression should be. There is no justification in trying to hinder anyone's political views, whether it be for punishment or "protection" from those ideas.

This isn't even taking a right away, specifically, but limits what ideas you are allowed to express. For example, my situation has nothing to do with drugs. If I owned a poster that expressed the idea that there needs to be change on drug policies of the United States, it would be confiscated.

This "you got into trouble, so now you should be censored" sentiment is frightening. This is not trying to protect people, it's thought policing. I am honestly disturbed by this.

The constitution resides over laws. Laws cannot govern the constitution.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

I concur 100%.
Freedom is as much privilege as it is responsibility.
You seem to have shown that you can't handle it without infringing on the liberty and rights ot OTHER people.
So it is reasonable to take certain freedoms away from you.

Freedom of expression is not a priviledge, it is a right. It's called the Constitution, you should look into it.

Since it has domain over laws, laws cannot govern the constitution, unless the constitution mentions it. Exceptions can be made while one is jailed, of course, but technically they still have the freedoms, or at least should, unless the constitution mentions otherwise.

But under no circumstance should people be censored because of the content of the point of view, or even the way they express it (if it is vocally, then it should not cause harm to another person), unless it is slander or libel, in which the person will not be silenced before hand but will have to pay the price for the malicious effects.

Being able to not leave the house without my parents, I can understand. Being able to restrict the political ideas I express is not.

Tmy

27th June 2003, 10:59 AM

Are you a minor? Minors dont have the same rights.

Plus if your punishment was part of a plea, you basically gave up your rights on your own. Dont fret, it wont last forvever. Then you can finally publish "Common Sense 2: The revenge!"

27th June 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
You had all those rights. You blew it when you got in trouble. Whatd you do anyway.

Actually, minors do NOT have "all those rights". In fact, at least in some places they are barely due any process at all.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 05:59 PM

Last time I checked, the first admendment applies to everyone, even prison convicts.

You can't make laws that say who and when the constitution can apply to. Only the constitution can say that.

Mr Manifesto

27th June 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Tmy

We're too easy on kids. Its the Oprha-fying of our country. We're all wusses. You cant hit your kids...

But you can hit your kids. My dad hit me when I misbehaved at a time when everyone was calling the police for assault for the slightest backhanding of a child in public. The difference was, he didn't do it in public. I agree with that. Why humilate a child in public? In fact, my father saying I was going to be in trouble when I got home was quite effective, especially because I knew he meant it.

I don't think any reasonable person is against the odd whack. There are people who try to raise their children without any physical violence whatsover, and I applaud that. Child rearing is a complicated thing. What I think the Oprahs of the world are really railing against is beating your kids within an inch of their lives, or whacking them in public. Some things are better done behind closed doors. ;)

Oh- and there's nothing wrong with men crying or talking about their feelings. Quit trying to be Macho Man.

reprise

27th June 2003, 06:18 PM

DC, home detention is usually given as an alternative to continuing custodial detention - thus, many of the restrictions which would apply were you still in the juvenile detention centre will also apply during the period of your home detention.

Did you have to apply for home detention (this is usually the case) and agree to the conditions which were being imposed before you were released from the juvenile detention centre?

FWIW, I think the particular restrictions you're talking about are damn useless in terms of modifying your behaviour towards your parents and have probably been imposed because they are standard for all juveniles on home detection (breath tests and random urine tests are standard for all adults on home detention here, whether or not alcohol or drugs were a factor in their offence). The rules might seem stupid to you (and I'd be inclined to agree), but it's in your own best interests to comply with them for the next 4 weeks rather than buck the system.

Crossbow

27th June 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Last time I checked, the first admendment applies to everyone, even prison convicts.

You can't make laws that say who and when the constitution can apply to. Only the constitution can say that.

No, that is incorrect.

Convicted felons lose the right to vote,
While they are in prision their right to assembly is greatly curtailed, as is their rights to protest, and speech.

If you think you have it bad now,
Then you should try real prision as opposed to house arrest.

reprise

27th June 2003, 06:46 PM

Is there a website where I could read more about the CARE programme DC? I assume that apart from the juvenile justice aspects of the programme it also has components which are designed to find long-term solutions to the problems which landed you in the juvenile justice system.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Crossbow

No, that is incorrect.

Convicted felons lose the right to vote,
While they are in prision their right to assembly is greatly curtailed, as is their rights to protest, and speech.

If you think you have it bad now,
Then you should try real prision as opposed to house arrest.

I am not really effected by house arrest, I do not mind it and I am not really complaining.

However, does the constitution say that convicts lose the right, or do other laws state that? I cannot recall which, but if it is not in the constitution then it is technically not allowable but accepted anyways.

I understand how their right to assembly is very limited, but if the constitution does not make it clear then it should be altered to say so.

But, even if someone is in prison, they should not lose their right to show support of certain political views. In my house arrest program thingamjig, you can of course have posters on your wall, just not ones dealing with drugs. This is not targetting a method of speech but certain speech, a certain viewpoint, itself.

I'm not familiar with the prison system, but I believe they still have the right to protest and the right to speech, however the way they express it may be limited.

We cannot allow ourselves to make exceptions because it "feels right" or is "common sense". If it must be necessary, then we must change the constitution.

Lord Kenneth

27th June 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Is there a website where I could read more about the CARE programme DC? I assume that apart from the juvenile justice aspects of the programme it also has components which are designed to find long-term solutions to the problems which landed you in the juvenile justice system.

Hmmm... perhaps, I don't think it's that flexible, though...

Jedi Knight

27th June 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I am in a program called CARE, and the first four weeks involve being on house arrest.

An officer comes every day to make sure I am following the rules of the program or such, making sure my anklet is still on, etc etc...

However, one of the rules involve this: You cannot have any violent or "Parental Advisory" music CDs, and you cannot have any posters which depict drugs (this may even include posters supporting the legalization of certain drugs, a purely political point).

I understand that I am a minor and my rights are not protected like they should be (they just don't care, and it keeps things convenient for them, especially with their agendas).

I can see the reason for the censorship, but still, I dislike censorship... if the government, under any circumstances, can prevent you from expressing certain ideas or listening to them, what stops them from doing this when you are not under any government program?

What crime did you do that qualified you to have to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet?

JK

Lord Kenneth

28th June 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What crime did you do that qualified you to have to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet?

JK

Third degree assault, then reduced to disturbing the peace.

My parents and I agree that this is too extreme, but it's the only way I could go home.

arcticpenguin

28th June 2003, 09:57 AM

You hardly ever mention your father. Are your parents still together? Is your father a significant presence in your life at all?

If you feel this is prying too much, feel free not to answer.

reprise

28th June 2003, 01:52 PM

DC, would you mind if I asked you a few more questions about how CARE works - the degree for which I'm currently studying is Criminology and as I'll almost certainly choose juvenile justice as my major I'm very curious about how diversionary programmes for youth are structured elsewhere.

I'm pleased to hear that your parents believe your punishment is too harsh - it sounds like not only did they want you to come home but that you also wanted that; it sounds like you've found some common ground at last. :) I'm a little surprised that they didn't have more input into the conditions under which you were released into their care, though.

shuize

28th June 2003, 05:05 PM

The Constitution allows the deprivations of which you complain via the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment, which also applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

shanek

28th June 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I can see the reason for the censorship, but still, I dislike censorship... if the government, under any circumstances, can prevent you from expressing certain ideas or listening to them, what stops them from doing this when you are not under any government program?

I don't know what the CARE program is, so I might be completely wrong about this, but if your punishment comes from having been suspected, arrested, prosecuted, and convicted through due process, giving you the right to an attorney and a trial by jury and all of your other Constitutional rights, and this punishment is a result of the sentencing following said conviction, then the government is acting within their just powers, and the limitations imposed on you do not constitute censorship, and I have possibly just written the longest run-on sentence in my entire tenure on this forum. :D

And this is coming from someone who, as anyone here will tell you, loves to rail against government intervention every chance he gets.

shanek

28th June 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Freedom of expression is not a priviledge, it is a right. It's called the Constitution, you should look into it.

Many of your Constitutional rights, except for the ones forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteeing due process, etc., can be taken away from you for a limited time if you are properly convicted of a crime. It's not like they let inmates have guns, even with the Second Amendment.

But under no circumstance should people be censored because of the content of the point of view,

But that isn't what's happening here. It's not like everyone is being forbade from these materials; only you, after (apparently) being convicted of a crime.

or even the way they express it (if it is vocally, then it should not cause harm to another person), unless it is slander or libel, in which the person will not be silenced before hand but will have to pay the price for the malicious effects.

Being able to restrict the political ideas I express is not.

But they're not stopping you from expressing your political ideas. They're stopping you from partaking in material published by others.

Lord Kenneth

28th June 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Many of your Constitutional rights, except for the ones forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, guaranteeing due process, etc., can be taken away from you for a limited time if you are properly convicted of a crime. It's not like they let inmates have guns, even with the Second Amendment.

Limiting one's ability to express themselves, within their own room, in a way that is not harmful to themselves or others and is not even relevant to the reason I am in this program.

If they didn't allow posters about abortion, I doubt you'd support that policy. However, the different messages matter little.

But that isn't what's happening here. It's not like everyone is being forbade from these materials; only you, after (apparently) being convicted of a crime.

or even the way they express it (if it is vocally, then it should not cause harm to another person), unless it is slander or libel, in which the person will not be silenced before hand but will have to pay the price for the malicious effects.

And what I have been convicted of is irrelevant to the issue of drugs. I would be more understanding if a long-time hard drug dealer could not have such posters. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

But they're not stopping you from expressing your political ideas. They're stopping you from partaking in material published by others. [/B]

People CAN make their own posters, you know.

This punishment is standard to all juveniles in the CARE program, and I dislike that because I think it should be tailored to each case.

Also, nobody has commented on the fact that they are silencing a particular message, and not a form of expressing it. Posters are allowed except ones expressing a political belief they disagree with.

rikzilla

28th June 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Third degree assault, then reduced to disturbing the peace.

My parents and I agree that this is too extreme, but it's the only way I could go home.

So,
You attacked your mom? Is that correct? :confused:
Was there a reason for this?

Could there ever be a reason for this?

-z

shanek

29th June 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Limiting one's ability to express themselves, within their own room, in a way that is not harmful to themselves or others and is not even relevant to the reason I am in this program.

Wait, now I'm confused...Did the denial of the posters come about because of your sentencing or was your sentincing a result of having the posters?

More details would enable us to make better informed statements.

If they didn't allow posters about abortion, I doubt you'd support that policy.

Why do you assume this?

People CAN make their own posters, you know.

From the way you made it sound, these weren't your posters. Again, more details would make for more informed statements.

This punishment is standard to all juveniles in the CARE program, and I dislike that because I think it should be tailored to each case.

As I said, I know very little about the CARE program and am thus unable to comment on it.

Posters are allowed except ones expressing a political belief they disagree with.

Again, details would make things clearer.

reprise

29th June 2003, 12:19 PM

Could someone tell me what a "parental advisory" CD is? Does it have a sticker on it warning that some of the content is of an "adult" nature (ie, drug, sexual, or violence-related) so that parents can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it for their children? If so, at what age can someone purchase a CD with such a sticker?

If a "parental advisory" is what I think it is, then it seems odd that the state's way of dealing with DC's inability to conform to the limits set by his parents is to impose restriction upon him which remove some of their parental discretion.

Badger

29th June 2003, 12:38 PM

DC, I fail to see the logic behind why you're miffed.

The facts, as I seem them, are that you infringed on several of your mothers freedoms/rights, and were convicted of doing so. As part of the punishment resulting from this conviction, you are deprived of rights you don't even use.

Please correct me where I'm mistaken.

arcticpenguin

29th June 2003, 12:41 PM

I wonder if his electronic bracelet has a 'zapper' built in, and they gave his mother the control in case he attacks her again...

peptoabysmal

29th June 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Could someone tell me what a "parental advisory" CD is? Does it have a sticker on it warning that some of the content is of an "adult" nature (ie, drug, sexual, or violence-related) so that parents can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it for their children? If so, at what age can someone purchase a CD with such a sticker?

If a "parental advisory" is what I think it is, then it seems odd that the state's way of dealing with DC's inability to conform to the limits set by his parents is to impose restriction upon him which remove some of their parental discretion.

It's a US thing - applies to music that contains foul language and is usually about having sex, killing cops, taking drugs etc.

I'm willing to bet that I could send any 12 year old into a shopping mall and within a couple of hours, this kid would be able to come out with Mature rated games and CD's with parental advisory stickers on them.

reprise

29th June 2003, 12:52 PM

Thanks peptoabysmal, that's pretty much what I'd assumed it was.

aerocontrols

29th June 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I'm willing to bet that I could send any 12 year old into a shopping mall and within a couple of hours, this kid would be able to come out with Mature rated games and CD's with parental advisory stickers on them.

I don't think the label is meant to be a 'do not sell to minors' label, pepto. You would most likely win your bet, if you were able to find anyone to bet against you.

MattJ

shanek

29th June 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Could someone tell me what a "parental advisory" CD is? Does it have a sticker on it warning that some of the content is of an "adult" nature (ie, drug, sexual, or violence-related) so that parents can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it for their children?

Exactly. Here's the sticker:

http://www.momes.net/musique/parentalad.jpg

If so, at what age can someone purchase a CD with such a sticker?

This site (http://www.riaa.com/issues%5Cparents%5Cadvisory.asp) should answer all of your quesitons.

If a "parental advisory" is what I think it is, then it seems odd that the state's way of dealing with DC's inability to conform to the limits set by his parents is to impose restriction upon him which remove some of their parental discretion.

Why does it seem odd? It seems to me to be precisely in line with bureaucratic thinking.

reprise

29th June 2003, 03:22 PM

Thanks for that link Shanek. I hope that graphic doesn't represent the actual size of "parental advisory stickers"!

Edited to add link to the Australian Record Industry Association (http://www.aria.com.au/news/labellingcode.htm) code of practice, which is a voluntary, industry code.

Anything which exceeded Level 3 under the code would almost certainly be looked at in terms of our obscenity laws, and so a judgement about its suitability for distribution would be made by the courts rather than by the recording industry.

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Badger
DC, I fail to see the logic behind why you're miffed.

The facts, as I seem them, are that you infringed on several of your mothers freedoms/rights, and were convicted of doing so. As part of the punishment resulting from this conviction, you are deprived of rights you don't even use.

Please correct me where I'm mistaken.

I barely "infringed" on her righhts, I basically just shoved her around a little bit.

No, the punishment is being put in the CARE program, which I myself don't know much about but it's basically for the state to keep an eye on kids in the program. It's not very flexible, because putting me in house arrest certainly doesn't help a kid who has social anxiety and doesn't have much friends in the first place -- some might consider this kid needs to get out more. :rolleyes:

This is not PUNISHMENT, this is THOUGHT POLICING.

I am not deprived of the right to have posters in my room-- I am not allowed to have posters in my room supporting a PARTICULAR political view.

It is disturbing how easily the government slips in censorship and many sit idling by, smiling.

I understand I cannot go outside without being with my parents and having to call out-- it makes perfect sense for what I did (although too harsh).

Also, if my mom herself would have been able to choose, she would have let me get home without anything. Being put in this program is the only way I could get home. She now possibly regrets pressing charges (she couldn't drop them).

The point of government punishment should be to rehabilitate the person who commited the crime-- and possibly to pay retribution to those the crime was commited to. In this case, it is to help me and protect my family.

Restricting what views I should be allowed around, however, is censorship, and is inexcusable.

I am a libertarian, if you did not notice. I have a funny inkling you are not.

What if one of the rules were, specifically, no anti-Christian posters or no anti-abortion posters? Other posters would be allowed, except one expressing such views. This is, obviously, an attempt on controlling one's ideas. If one has a political opinion, they should be allowed to express it in THEIR OWN HOME if it is not done in a way which causes harm to others.

Not only do you obviously have little respect or understanding for/of people's rights, but you don't even understand the point of being punished, or why punishments need to be relevant to the crime.

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 05:06 PM

Also, they say no parental advisory CD's, but the rules of the program entirely forget to account for computers. This doesn't affect me, but... FOOLS.

Heh, old farts who make these programs...

Graham

30th June 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
[B]

I barely "infringed" on her righhts, I basically just shoved her around a little bit.

*snipped yet another tirade of pathetic, self-indulgent, self-pitying, rambling

Dude, what planet do you live on that you think it's acceptable to shove your mom around at all?

If you were my son and you tried that with my wife you wouldn't be in any kind of program at all, except maybe one where they teach people to walk and talk after they've undergone a serious head injury.

Except that neither of my sons (were they old enough to do so) would ever actually attack their mom. I can say with full and complete confidence that both of them are better people than that (and one of them is only one year old!).

In deference to the new forum rules on swearing an such, let me just say that you're a coward and a toerag, that you're a moron and a reprobate and that any punishment you get is too good for you.

And all you can think of to say is to complain because you're not allowed to listen to some CDs?

What the hell is the matter with you?

Graham

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Dude, what planet do you live on that you think it's acceptable to shove your mom around at all?

If you were my son and you tried that with my wife you wouldn't be in any kind of program at all, except maybe one where they teach people to walk and talk after they've undergone a serious head injury.

Except that neither of my sons (were they old enough to do so) would ever actually attack their mom. I can say with full and complete confidence that both of them are better people than that (and one of them is only one year old!).

In deference to the new forum rules on swearing an such, let me just say that you're a coward and a toerag, that you're a moron and a reprobate and that any punishment you get is too good for you.

And all you can think of to say is to complain because you're not allowed to listen to some CDs?

What the hell is the matter with you?

Graham

http://www.gramex.com/assets/images/redneck.gif

Graham

30th June 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

http://www.gramex.com/assets/images/redneck.gif

Nice picture, coward. :rolleyes:

PS - you suck.

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 06:19 AM

Children don't have rights, they have protections, which means it's perfectly acceptable to control their access and exposure to certain materials, and it's nothing to do with thought-policing (well, only in a behaviourist kind of way to try and encourage 'em to behave), Nineteen Eighty-Four or restricting freedom of expression.

But I thought Parental Advisory stickers were a promotional gimmick cooked up by the music industry? :D

rikzilla

30th June 2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I barely "infringed" on her righhts, I basically just shoved her around a little bit.

No, the punishment is being put in the CARE program, which I myself don't know much about but it's basically for the state to keep an eye on kids in the program. It's not very flexible, because putting me in house arrest certainly doesn't help a kid who has social anxiety and doesn't have much friends in the first place -- some might consider this kid needs to get out more. :rolleyes:

This is not PUNISHMENT, this is THOUGHT POLICING.

You know,...your mom is highly likely to be the only person in this entire world that loves you unconditionally. People regularly find true love, only to see it end in divorce or just plain apathy. Yet you can always count on your mom. All your life, she's usually the only one who's love for you will never waiver.

Yet you "basically just shoved her around a little bit." That's great. The very least you could offer to this person who suffered to bring you into the world, then saw to it you were clothed and fed is your love and respect . Instead you've assaulted her!

Soon you will be out in the world, with rent to pay, and a real boss who won't love you or respect you unless you EARN that respect. Are you going to try to "basically just shove" everyone around who gets in the way of the "rights" you think you are so entitled to?

I got news for you bud,...you need to wake up. The world out there, unlike how you percieve your mom, does not owe you anything. You keep this selfish, childish, me,me,me attitude of yours and you will be on the streets someday soon being fed by the very religious people you so despise.

My advice to you is, listen to the people in that CARE program. Change your attitude and pass your time on this program in the most positive way you can. Wise up kid, the next step after CARE is likely jail. That's where you go when they've given up on you. There won't be any political posters there, or free internet time either. Just a big hairy guy named "Bubba" who thinks you're cute.

I hope you do wise up, and I wish you the best in your life. You've got it all in front of you....it's going to be so very easy for you to make a success of it if only you will try.

And go hug your mom sometime. Tell her you're sorry. Tell her you love her.

-zilla

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Children don't have rights, they have protections, which means it's perfectly acceptable to control their access and exposure to certain materials, and it's nothing to do with thought-policing (well, only in a behaviourist kind of way to try and encourage 'em to behave), Nineteen Eighty-Four or restricting freedom of expression.

But I thought Parental Advisory stickers were a promotional gimmick cooked up by the music industry? :D

Where does it say that in the constitution?

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Where does it say that in the constitution?
I don't know; I'd be surprised if the constitution says anything about treatment of children.

Crossbow

30th June 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Third degree assault, then reduced to disturbing the peace.

My parents and I agree that this is too extreme, but it's the only way I could go home.

So I take it you plead Guilty, yes?

If so, then that means you agree with the charges so quit your whining!

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

I don't know; I'd be surprised if the constitution says anything about treatment of children.

It doesn't specify adults, either.

It applies to citizens, and children and teens are in fact citizens of the United States (or are legible for the status).

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

So I take it you plead Guilty, yes?

If so, then that means you agree with the charges so quit your whining!

My, my, my. How sad it is that you cannot understand exactly WHAT I am "whining" about.

I am protesting the limiting of freedom of expression, not by a certain mode of doing so but of a certain idea. The fact that it effects me is irrelevent, as I would strongly disagree with such punishment, no matter who it applies to.

You yourself understand juvenile court very little, as juveniles don't plead "Guilty or not guilty", a different terminology is used.

You need to straighten up, Crossbow, and learn WHY people are punished in the court system, the reasons for it, and the fact that "punishments" need to be relevent to the crime commited.

Also, you need to understand that no crime warrents taking away a person's freedom of expression. A person, regardless of who they are or the ideas they hold, should be allowed to express them in a way that does not put other people in danger. A person does not become a slave of the government after admitting to an offense.

Checkmite

30th June 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by reprise
Thanks for that link Shanek. I hope that graphic doesn't represent the actual size of "parental advisory stickers"!

Actually, the stickers are only about 2cm across - very small.

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

It doesn't specify adults, either.

It applies to citizens, and children and teens are in fact citizens of the United States (or are legible for the status).
The preamble and enumeration of rights implies adults (although admittedly aspects of it excluded certain groups of adults up 'til the 1920s). The nearest it comes to referring to children is Amendment 26, voting age.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

The preamble and enumeration of rights implies adults (although admittedly aspects of it excluded certain groups of adults up 'til the 1920s). The nearest it comes to referring to children is Amendment 26, voting age.

And there is the only place is SPECIFIES an age! In fact, it makes sure to specify an age, implying that the other rights belong to people of any age!

WMT1

30th June 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I barely "infringed" on her righhts, I basically just shoved her around a little bit.

How proud you must be.

No, the punishment is being put in the CARE program, which I myself don't know much about but it's basically for the state to keep an eye on kids in the program. It's not very flexible, because putting me in house arrest certainly doesn't help a kid who has social anxiety and doesn't have much friends in the first place -- some might consider this kid needs to get out more. :rolleyes:

And who exactly is responsible for putting you in this situation?

I am not deprived of the right to have posters in my room-- I am not allowed to have posters in my room supporting a PARTICULAR political view.

Sounds kind of silly to me. However, I'd say that someone who "basically just shoved her around a little bit" has more important things to worry about.

It is disturbing how easily the government slips in censorship and many sit idling by, smiling.

What is more disturbing is a guy who pushes around his mother, and thinks his biggest problem is not being able to put up the posters he wants.

The point of government punishment should be to rehabilitate the person who commited the crime-- and possibly to pay retribution to those the crime was commited to. In this case, it is to help me and protect my family.

Actually, some of us think its primary focus should be deterrence. And if your punishment doesn't make you less likely to repeat the behavior that led to it, then if anything, it just might be too lenient.

Restricting what views I should be allowed around, however, is censorship, and is inexcusable.

Actually, it's just kind of silly. What you did comes closer to being inexcusable.

I am a libertarian, if you did not notice.

I, for one, did not notice. Most libertarians understand that they just might forfeit some of their own freedoms by violating someone else's.

If one has a political opinion, they should be allowed to express it in THEIR OWN HOME if it is not done in a way which causes harm to others.

What is the "political opinion" you're being deprived of expressing?

Not only do you obviously have little respect or understanding for/of people's rights,

Take a look in the mirror.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 07:57 AM

I will not respond to posts that are so reliant on fallacy.

Let's turn this issue around, shall we? Some of you are too immature and biased to get a grip on what I am actually protesting.

Prison inmates allowed to have magazines-- except pornographic ones.

I believe they should be allowed to possess them. Why am I wrong?

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
And there is the only place is SPECIFIES an age!
That's what I said.
In fact, it makes sure to specify an age, implying that the other rights belong to people of any age!
But does that necessarily imply children?

For instance, the Constitution of the United States Analysis and Interpretation (Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States) 1992 Supplement, Fourteenth Amendment (http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9849091797+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve):
because of the role of public education in inculcating civic values and in preparing children for participation in society as citizens

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 08:07 AM

Considering that the Supreme Court, in some instances, has rules that students do have freedom of speech...

If, however, citizenship is only achieved at the age of 18, then I admit I am wrong.

WMT1

30th June 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I will not respond to posts that are so reliant on fallacy.

You forgot to indicate what post you're referring to, but if it's mine, then please clearly identify at least one of the fallacies in question, or admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and can't hold your own in a discussion with grownups.

Some of you are too immature and biased to get a grip on what I am actually protesting.

:rolleyes: It's pretty obvious to just about anyone here where the immaturity lies.

rikzilla

30th June 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I will not respond to posts that are so reliant on fallacy.

Let's turn this issue around, shall we? Some of you are too immature and biased to get a grip on what I am actually protesting.

Prison inmates allowed to have magazines-- except pornographic ones.

I believe they should be allowed to possess them. Why am I wrong?

You are wrong because you are a self indulgent little twit. Unless you change your ways, the restricted life and freedom of the prison inmate is not going to be some academic question. Instead it will be your world.

Rights come with responsibilities. Assaulting and disrespecting those who love you the most is more than irresponsible,..it's reprehensible.

re·spon·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-spns-bl)
adj.
Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
Being a source or cause.
Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.

rep·re·hen·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rpr-hns-bl)
adj.
Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin reprehnsibilis, from Latin reprehnsus, past participle of reprehendere, to reprehend. See reprehend.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
repre·hensi·bili·ty or repre·hensi·ble·ness n.
repre·hensi·bly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]

reprehensible

\Rep`re*hen"si*ble\ (-h?n"s?-b'l), a. [L. reprehensibilis: cf. F. r['e]pr['e]hensible.] Worthy of reprehension; culpable; censurable; blamable. -- Rep`re*hen\"si*ble*ness, n. -- Rep`re*hen\"si*bly, adv.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

reprehensible

adj : bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife" [syn: condemnable, criminal, deplorable]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

See the difference?
Responsible = earned rights, respect, admiration
Reprehensible = abridged rights, disrespect, scorn

Which kind of person do you wish to become? If you wish to really protect your own rights to self expression, or anything else for that matter, you should aspire to be first a responsible citizen.

Most of the folks who have replied to you in a negative way are people I have been in heated debates with. Most of us have completely different perspectives and opinions on most issues. However, we can all agree that your actions have been reprehensible. Wake up and grow up, before it's too late.

-zilla

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

You are wrong because you are a self indulgent little twit. Unless you change your ways, the restricted life and freedom of the prison inmate is not going to be some academic question. Instead it will be your world.

Starting right off with the perfect example of an ad hominem!

The point of prison should simply be to imprison someone, not to torture them or take away rights which are irrelevent to being imprisoned.

Rights come with responsibilities. Assaulting and disrespecting those who love you the most is more than irresponsible,..it's reprehensible.

Opinion, purely subjective.

See the difference?
Responsible = earned rights, respect, admiration
Reprehensible = abridged rights, disrespect, scorn

Which kind of person do you wish to become? If you wish to really protect your own rights to self expression, or anything else for that matter, you should aspire to be first a responsible citizen.

A responsible citizen respects rights that the government is not allowed to take away.

Being imprisoned for commiting a crime is understandable. Not being allowed to look at something because the government finds it "immoral" is not understandable.

Most of the folks who have replied to you in a negative way are people I have been in heated debates with. Most of us have completely different perspectives and opinions on most issues. However, we can all agree that your actions have been reprehensible. Wake up and grow up, before it's too late.

Because you all agree, you MUST be right! This is a sad appeal to majority...

Rights are not privileges. They are RIGHTS. The government CANNOT revoke them simply because they feel like it! This is sickening. If you people start running the country I promise I will eventually move out of the United States!

Crossbow

30th June 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

My, my, my. How sad it is that you cannot understand exactly WHAT I am "whining" about.

I am protesting the limiting of freedom of expression, not by a certain mode of doing so but of a certain idea. The fact that it effects me is irrelevent, as I would strongly disagree with such punishment, no matter who it applies to.

You yourself understand juvenile court very little, as juveniles don't plead "Guilty or not guilty", a different terminology is used.

You need to straighten up, Crossbow, and learn WHY people are punished in the court system, the reasons for it, and the fact that "punishments" need to be relevent to the crime commited.

Also, you need to understand that no crime warrents taking away a person's freedom of expression. A person, regardless of who they are or the ideas they hold, should be allowed to express them in a way that does not put other people in danger. A person does not become a slave of the government after admitting to an offense.

For your information, I do have a fairly good idea of how the Criminal Legal System works.

I have testified in criminal trials,
I have testified in civil trials,
I have seen the inside of jails and prisons,
I have worked with the police, and
I have known several criminal attorneys.

In the penal system people do have their rights limited, that is what the penal system is supposed to do.

You remind me of the approximately 20 people from the Watergate affair who were sent to a minimum-security prison for their role in it. After a while, they started complaining about how their constitution rights were being violated and such in order to get their sentences reduced and/or eliminated (kind of like you are currently doing) so the prison officials essentially said, "Fine. If you do not like this place, then there another place you can serve your time at." Then all of them were promptly shipped off to a maximum security prison where they immediately stopped complaining.

So I reiterate, quit your whining! All of the stuff you are posting on here could be used against you in determining how your sentence will be served.

Graham

30th June 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Rights are not privileges. They are RIGHTS. The government CANNOT revoke them simply because they feel like it! This is sickening. If you people start running the country I promise I will eventually move out of the United States!

Childish threats aside (hint - you can't threaten someone when the consequence is not something they care about in the slightest), you continually prattle on about how morals are "not objective". How are "rights" any more objectively valid than morals?

Graham

WMT1

30th June 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
The point of prison should simply be to imprison someone, not to torture them or take away rights which are irrelevent to being imprisoned.

Would you prefer prison to living at home with conditions attached?

Originally posted by rikzilla
Rights come with responsibilities. Assaulting and disrespecting those who love you the most is more than irresponsible,..it's reprehensible.

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Opinion, purely subjective.

Does this mean you don't think assaulting and disrespecting those who love you the most is reprehensible? :eek:

A responsible citizen respects rights that the government is not allowed to take away.

Unless, of course, they are being taken from someone who has violated someone else's rights.

Because you all agree, you MUST be right! This is a sad appeal to majority...

That's a bit of an oversimplification. There's a little more to it, like the fact the only one standing alone against that majority suffers from a serious, self-inflicted credibility problem. Bullying one's mother tends to have the effect of making righteous indignation about anything else kind of laughable.

Rights are not privileges. They are RIGHTS. The government CANNOT revoke them simply because they feel like it!

Would you say they can revoke them if their reason for doing so is that the person whose rights are being revoked has violated someone else's?

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow

For your information, I do have a fairly good idea of how the Criminal Legal System works.

I have testified in criminal trials,
I have testified in civil trials,
I have seen the inside of jails and prisons,
I have worked with the police, and
I have known several criminal attorneys.

In the penal system people do have their rights limited, that is what the penal system is supposed to do.

You remind me of the approximately 20 people from the Watergate affair who were sent to a minimum-security prison for their role in it. After a while, they started complaining about how their constitution rights were being violated and such in order to get their sentences reduced and/or eliminated (kind of like you are currently doing) so the prison officials essentially said, "Fine. If you do not like this place, then there another place you can serve your time at." Then all of them were promptly shipped off to a maximum security prison where they immediately stopped complaining.

So I reiterate, quit your whining! All of the stuff you are posting on here could be used against you in determining how your sentence will be served.

Laughable.

The issue at hand doesn't involve me-- so why do you keep bringing me into this? The issue at hand is the government doing this to everyone.

The issue is not me being censored, the issue is about other people (me included, I suppose) having CERTAIN ideas of theirs censored.

If you were as knowledgeable as you claimed to be, you would realize that I am not attempting to have my sentence changed but to fix what is wrong in the government.

Either way, I am not affected in the slightest by this no-parental advisory CD rule or the poster rule. I, however, do not like the government infringing on people's rights in an unnecessary fashion.

It's amazing that so many anti-DC (now, anti-LK) try to change the issue at hand from being an anti-censorship one into their own little anti-LK one. I'm not trying to lighten my sentence at all...

Frank Newgent

30th June 2003, 08:52 AM

How would Mommy (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10608) vote?

WMT1

30th June 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
The issue is not me being censored, the issue is about other people (me included, I suppose) having CERTAIN ideas of theirs censored.

Okay, let me try this again. What "CERTAIN ideas" are you concerned about being censored?

rikzilla

30th June 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

Starting right off with the perfect example of an ad hominem!

Got your attention tho... my other post, which contained no ad-hom was ignored by you. This means you are a reactionary personality. You enjoy the fight. This is the personality type that is most usually associated with trolls. That, and your advanced number of posts reek of trollism. :rolleyes:

The point of prison should simply be to imprison someone, not to torture them or take away rights which are irrelevent to being imprisoned.

Prisons are there to remove violent individuals from society. If you think prisoners have actual rights you should go to visit a real prison. The very act of removing a person from society and placing him behind bars effectively removes most of this person's rights. All that remain are human rights. The right to eat, sleep, and be clothed, be visited by an attorney...that's all you get. If you want to read a book, or watch tv...and you're a model prisoner,...then you earn that right. If you go to prison and "shove people around" they are going to kick your a$$. Then they are going to throw you in solitary, where you can howl and cry about your "rights".

Opinion, purely subjective.

Someone has recently learned the difference between objective and subjective! Bravo! I'm 43 years old, you are a kid. I've lived through alot more of this unfair old world than you and I'm almost completely disinterested in your little life...which makes my opinion, as well as those of others here, both informed and unbiased. It's the closest thing to an objective opinion as you will ever find anywhere...and we are taking the time to give it to you for free.

A responsible citizen respects rights that the government is not allowed to take away.

No, wrong. A responsible citizen earns their own rights by respecting the rights of others and not infringing on the rights of others. Must I again define responsible for you? You've gotten objective/subjective down fairly well,..what is it about responsibilty that you find so hard to understand?

Being imprisoned for commiting a crime is understandable. Not being allowed to look at something because the government finds it "immoral" is not understandable.

The government is nothing more or less than a reflection of the values of it's people. "The government" does not believe that kiddie porn is immoral....the people of the United States believe that kiddie porn is immoral, and thus the government as a representation of the will of the majority of it's people will seek to imprison the vermin who deal in kiddie porn. Why is that not understandable?

Because you all agree, you MUST be right! This is a sad appeal to majority...

You're a seemingly bright kid. But no, that's not the point I was trying to make. We all agree...all us lefties and all us neo-cons...because we are all mature. Not so much an appeal to majority. More an appeal to experience and knowledge.

Rights are not privileges. They are RIGHTS. The government CANNOT revoke them simply because they feel like it!

Of course not. But there is a thing called due process of law. You cannot be deprived of your life, liberty, or property without it. However, once convicted, the government can take your property. It can incarcerate you, taking your liberty. It can execute you taking your life.

This is sickening. If you people start running the country I promise I will eventually move out of the United States!

..and go where? There is no place on Earth where irresponsible or criminal behavior is appreciated. It's generally not even tolerated. You cannot run, you cannot hide. There are many other places more repressive of your precious rights than the US of A. But if you are intent on leaving, then please do. The rest of us who drag ourselves out of bed every morning to provide food and shelter for our families won't miss you at all. Believe me, we won't.

-zilla

BillyTK

30th June 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
It's amazing that so many anti-DC (now, anti-LK) try to change the issue at hand from being an anti-censorship one into their own little anti-LK one. I'm not trying to lighten my sentence at all...

I've no idea what/who anti-DC is, but I do find your charge of censorship lacking in substance. Being denied the freedom to display certain posters or listen to certain CDs as part of a sentence hardly constitutes censorship; your parents are entitled to do that (and more) without institutional backing anyway.

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 09:40 AM

I don't know why people call you with another nickname than yours and I do not really care.

I understand your feelings and although I live so far away, I can feel your anger. I think I can see your hands trembling with anger while you are typing this.

You are very bright. I don't know how old you are but your eloquent posts impressed me.

You seem to have accepted your penalty, although I have the funny feeling - correct me if I am wrong- that you think that you were right for acting the way you did.

I am not going to get into that discussion, whether your behaviour to your mother was appropriate or not. But since you have decided to approach your situation rationally, do it in a smart way ;)

You either play by the rules or not, you can't have it both. As you grow older, you will learn that when you decide to violate the rules you souldn't expect much.

Regardless if the Constitution acknowledges you the right of free expression all you will receive will be irony and contempt, I think this thread gave you an idea on what people think about prisoners and have in mind that people here were polite and tried to be helpful.

So, instead of focusing on your constitutional rights, focus on how you will avoid in the future to become any kind of prisoner...

I don't know if you get me. I am not discussing what you did , I am just try to show you why you must not expect people to take you seriously. None take seriously those who violate the rules.

This is sad and maybe unfair but this is how it is. Be practical!!

Now, if I were that smart and passionate like you, I wouldn't do what you do now. I wouldn't try to find ways to justify myself and I'd try to divert my anger to other things. Instead of discussing the constitutional rights I do not have anyway, I'd participate into a chat room to discuss about football.

Between you and me, I wouldn't touch my pc at all but this is another story. :) It seems that your mom is not that bad, after all... she let you use the pc...

Seriously. Think about becoming a lawyer. You are good, I'd hire you to defend me. You just need to get off the pc and catch up with your school.

Think about it. You might become a lawyer to defend the rights of the prisoners. Do you know who Cessare Beccaria was? I used to admire him. Before meeting Caesar of course...

Cleopatra.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 09:41 AM

Rikzilla, that's the same old tripe I've already argued...

I am not complaining about being punished. This goes right over your head. Why? Because YOU don't like me, and you simply want to attack me.

Rather, I am arguing for everyone. I AM NOT AFFECTED BY THIS. I AM A THIRD PARTY, OBSERVING WHAT I THINK IS WRONG. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. THIS IS ABOUT EVERYONE'S FREEDOMS.

LEGALLY, SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO ME, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY! HOWEVER, I disagree with part of it which I view as unconstitutional! A part that doesn't even effect me!

Originally posted by BillyTK

I've no idea what/who anti-DC is, but I do find your charge of censorship lacking in substance. Being denied the freedom to display certain posters or listen to certain CDs as part of a sentence hardly constitutes censorship; your parents are entitled to do that (and more) without institutional backing anyway.

If it's because the posters contain certain ideas, then yes, it is censorship. And I see no basis on limiting CD usage simply because other people have determined they fit the classic (and IMO stupid) definitions of "immoral" or ungodly.

I will not address any future posts who think this is an issue about me and my sentence.

blackpriester

30th June 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

You know,...your mom is highly likely to be the only person in this entire world that loves you unconditionally. People regularly find true love, only to see it end in divorce or just plain apathy. Yet you can always count on your mom. All your life, she's usually the only one who's love for you will never waiver.

Yet you "basically just shoved her around a little bit." That's great. The very least you could offer to this person who suffered to bring you into the world, then saw to it you were clothed and fed is your love and respect . Instead you've assaulted her!

Soon you will be out in the world, with rent to pay, and a real boss who won't love you or respect you unless you EARN that respect. Are you going to try to "basically just shove" everyone around who gets in the way of the "rights" you think you are so entitled to?

I got news for you bud,...you need to wake up. The world out there, unlike how you percieve your mom, does not owe you anything. You keep this selfish, childish, me,me,me attitude of yours and you will be on the streets someday soon being fed by the very religious people you so despise.

My advice to you is, listen to the people in that CARE program. Change your attitude and pass your time on this program in the most positive way you can. Wise up kid, the next step after CARE is likely jail. That's where you go when they've given up on you. There won't be any political posters there, or free internet time either. Just a big hairy guy named "Bubba" who thinks you're cute.

I hope you do wise up, and I wish you the best in your life. You've got it all in front of you....it's going to be so very easy for you to make a success of it if only you will try.

And go hug your mom sometime. Tell her you're sorry. Tell her you love her.

-zilla

You know Rikzilla, for once my Liberal heart agrees with you.
There are SOME values which should never change.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't know why people call you with another nickname than yours and I do not really care.

I understand your feelings and although I live so far away, I can feel your anger. I think I can see your hands trembling with anger while you are typing this.

You are very bright. I don't know how old you are but your eloquent posts impressed me.

You seem to have accepted your penalty, although I have the funny feeling - correct me if I am wrong- that you think that you were right for acting the way you did.

I am not going to get into that discussion, whether your behaviour to your mother was appropriate or not. But since you have decided to approach your situation rationally, do it in a smart way ;)

You either play by the rules or not, you can't have it both. As you grow older, you will learn that when you decide to violate the rules you souldn't expect much.

Regardless if the Constitution acknowledges you the right of free expression all you will receive will be irony and contempt, I think this thread gave you an idea on what people think about prisoners and have in mind that people here were polite and tried to be helpful.

So, instead of focusing on your constitutional rights, focus on how you will avoid in the future to become any kind of prisoner...

I don't know if you get me. I am not discussing what you did , I am just try to show you why you must not expect people to take you seriously. None take seriously those who violate the rules.

This is sad and maybe unfair but this is how it is. Be practical!!

Now, if I were that smart and passionate like you, I wouldn't do what you do now. I wouldn't try to find ways to justify myself and I'd try to divert my anger to other things. Instead of discussing the constitutional rights I do not have anyway, I'd participate into a chat room to discuss about football.

Between you and me, I wouldn't touch my pc at all but this is another story. :) It seems that your mom is not that bad, after all... she let you use the pc...

Seriously. Think about becoming a lawyer. You are good, I'd hire you to defend me. You just need to get off the pc and catch up with your school.

Think about it. You might become a lawyer to defend the rights of the prisoners. Do you know who Cessare Beccaria was? I used to admire him. Before meeting Caesar of course...

Cleopatra.

I think I was... justified... in my actions, but if I could go back in time I wouldn't do it again. Actually, what happened afterwards has actually improved my life somewhat, as I now have a better relationship with my mom.

No, you are wrong about people being polite in this topic. The most polite person who has addressed me in this topic is you. Everyone else just wanted to insult me.

I think the #1 purpose of punishment is to HELP the person, to change them in a positive way. My opinions on punishment have been changing quite a bit over the last few years, I used to support the death penalty, but now I only support it for extreme cases (Timothy McVeigh, for example), although I am, of course, open to arguements on either side.

The only rights that should be taken away for them commiting a crime should be relevent to the crime-- and censorship is almost never a good option.

WMT1

30th June 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
putting me in house arrest certainly doesn't help a kid who has social anxiety and doesn't have much friends in the first place

...

I am not deprived of the right to have posters in my room-- I am not allowed to have posters in my room supporting a PARTICULAR political view.

...

Restricting what views I should be allowed around, however, is censorship, and is inexcusable.

And now ...

I will not address any future posts who think this is an issue about me and my sentence.

Translation:

"I'll try to use this lame-ass excuse not to address anything that presents any kind of difficulty."

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I think I was... justified... in my actions, but if I could go back in time I wouldn't do it again. Actually, what happened afterwards has actually improved my life somewhat, as I now have a better relationship with my mom.

No, you are wrong about people being polite in this topic. The most polite person who has addressed me in this topic is you. Everyone else just wanted to insult me.

I think the #1 purpose of punishment is to HELP the person, to change them in a positive way. My opinions on punishment have been changing quite a bit over the last few years, I used to support the death penalty, but now I only support it for extreme cases (Timothy McVeigh, for example), although I am, of course, open to arguements on either side.

The only rights that should be taken away for them commiting a crime should be relevent to the crime-- and censorship is almost never a good option.

Yeap I kinda knew that you feel justified for what you did but the issue is not about you here or your mom.

The point of my post was to show you two things :

1. When you become a prisoner you lose one vital thing: Credibility.

For a smart person like you, this HURTS. You want people to believe you but they don't. They can't. You can't change this. In my opinion this is the worse implication of a punishment not the bracelet you wear not the CDs and the other stupidities. Accept it and try to be smart in the future.

2. The issue you bring, is maybe one of the oldest philosophical issues that have to do with Justice and Law and believe it or not I think that you have composed some very interesting posts in this thread. Sorry for appearing so surprised but at your age I am not sure that I cared about those things :)

This is why I asked you to do some Library Search on Cessare Beccaria or a Google search would do. You know, he was the first one back in the 13th ce who touched the issues you did here.

I can discuss this but I must do some reading first, you see those issues are complicated and philosophical I need to catch up some reading and ponder over certain things. I might need to discuss this with my business associate, who is a senior barrister and very wise.

You see, there are no easy answers...

Also, this is just an incident in your life that can turn into something useful, I think you saw it yourself. Be nice to yourself, do not compare yourself with MacVeight! :)

Think about becoming a lawyer,though. I insist :)

PS Oh trust me. People here were polite in comparison with REAL LIFE...This is not real life, even if they hurt you, you have the option to switch your pc off, think what would happen if you had to face them. You don't want this, don't you?

I still remember the first time in my life I saw a person who had the "yellow card" ... I am ashamed to admit that my attitude towards this person changed dramatically...I was kind of scarred. An ex-prisoner... This is prejudice but this is how it is.

Jedi Knight

30th June 2003, 10:17 AM

DragonLady

30th June 2003, 10:21 AM

Let me see if I've got this straight:

You "shoved around" your mother. You did so in such a way or with such an attitude that she either felt afraid of you & what you might do next; or she felt that you were completely beyond her control. So she called the police, and they charged you with 3rd degree assault.

Then, you received a plea bargain and were put into a program that allows you to live under house arrest. Participation in the program means someone monitors your movements, limits your access to obscenity and drug related literature (& posters) and includes occasional drug testing.

*** Sounds to me like you got off pretty easy! ***

You're pissed because you believe you have a right to whatever literature or posters you want. You believe you should be able to make any political statement you want, and believe the program you're in should be rebuilt to accomodate you and your special circumstances rather than be one-size-fits-all in regards to the particular crime you committed.

You didn't commit a drug-related crime, so therefore you feel you shouldn't be subject to restrictions on drug-related literature or posters.

Let me tell you first that you don't have a right to much of anything yet. It was decided long ago that children need special protections under the law.

In practise, these 'special protections' mean children are sent to school instead of work, are prevented access to materials considered obscene, are not to be 'interfered with' sexually, aren't permitted to drink alchohol, and are restricted in their movements. It also means parents have the duty to supervise their children, provide basic neccesities, and prevent harm to them wherever possible.

This is because children are considered incapable of making informed decisions concerning themselves or others. Children have not the facts or the maturity to see all the possible consequences of a particular action or the logical outcome of a set of circumstances.

Now, you've proven the point, by making a really lousy decision and believing you should be 'magically' relieved of some of the consequences, or shouldn't have to take full responsibility - for the same reasons the protections are in place. You seem to believe Mommy, Daddy or the people on this forum should all decry the nature of the punishments that have been meted, because you feel your rights are being trampled. You don't seem to understand that you lost these freedoms because you showed yourself incapable of using them in an appropriate manner.

You believe you should be able to display your political views -yet you've proven that you can't make good choices concerning your treatment of your own family. Therefore, your ability to make good political decisions for anyone else is extremely questionable.

It's my understanding you want to support the legalization of marijuana (is that correct?), but what of the other people who would have to live with the consequences? The rest of the people of your state or the nation do not deserve to live with a set of laws or criminal codes which were written by people who've proven themselves incapable of respect, unable to conform, and unwilling or inable to consider the logical outcomes of those laws.

If you can't show self-control in the living room, why should you be trusted at the ballot box?

The program sounds like a good one; but whether or not it's effective depends on you. You have the opportunity to show yourself able to conform to society, able to make a worthwhile contribution, and to help ensure this program remains viable for others in the same situation.

But be warned -in a few years you'll be an adult. Those 'special protections' go up in smoke with the birthday candles, and hitting anyone will be a felony. If you think CARE is restrictive, you should see maximum security! You can permanently lose your rights to vote, your rights to carry a firearm, your rights to move from state to state....all in a single moment of carelessness or anger.

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 10:22 AM

Jedi.... what shall I say....

WHAT SHALL I SAY, DAMN IT?

:mad:

Jedi Knight

30th June 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Jedi.... what shall I say....

WHAT SHALL I SAY, DAMN IT?

:mad:

Say you praise Jesus?

JK

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 10:28 AM

Lord Kenneth

I think that I will do this reading for the next couple of days and I will come back to this debate because I find it interesting.

Try to read something on Cessare Beccaria too, I think that this will be fun :)

Instead of pulling your ear as others did , I will throw you to the crocodiles :p

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Say you praise Jesus?

JK

No. I have something more appropriate for you, but then... nope. I consider that this a wish and not an insult.

Jedi Knight

30th June 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

No. I have something more appropriate for you, but then... nope. I consider that this a wish and not an insult.

Well bless you child, you can pray for me anytime.

JK

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Well bless you child, you can pray for me anytime.

JK

Ok Jedi. Right! Let's show the kid how adults behave...and then, let's preach him on behaviour until he faints.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by DragonLady
Let me see if I've got this straight:

You "shoved around" your mother. You did so in such a way or with such an attitude that she either felt afraid of you & what you might do next; or she felt that you were completely beyond her control. So she called the police, and they charged you with 3rd degree assault.

Then, you received a plea bargain and were put into a program that allows you to live under house arrest. Participation in the program means someone monitors your movements, limits your access to obscenity and drug related literature (& posters) and includes occasional drug testing.

*** Sounds to me like you got off pretty easy! ***

You're pissed because you believe you have a right to whatever literature or posters you want. You believe you should be able to make any political statement you want, and believe the program you're in should be rebuilt to accomodate you and your special circumstances rather than be one-size-fits-all in regards to the particular crime you committed.

You didn't commit a drug-related crime, so therefore you feel you shouldn't be subject to restrictions on drug-related literature or posters.

Let me tell you first that you don't have a right to much of anything yet. It was decided long ago that children need special protections under the law.

In practise, these 'special protections' mean children are sent to school instead of work, are prevented access to materials considered obscene, are not to be 'interfered with' sexually, aren't permitted to drink alchohol, and are restricted in their movements. It also means parents have the duty to supervise their children, provide basic neccesities, and prevent harm to them wherever possible.

This is because children are considered incapable of making informed decisions concerning themselves or others. Children have not the facts or the maturity to see all the possible consequences of a particular action or the logical outcome of a set of circumstances.

Now, you've proven the point, by making a really lousy decision and believing you should be 'magically' relieved of some of the consequences, or shouldn't have to take full responsibility - for the same reasons the protections are in place. You seem to believe Mommy, Daddy or the people on this forum should all decry the nature of the punishments that have been meted, because you feel your rights are being trampled. You don't seem to understand that you lost these freedoms because you showed yourself incapable of using them in an appropriate manner.

You believe you should be able to display your political views -yet you've proven that you can't make good choices concerning your treatment of your own family. Therefore, your ability to make good political decisions for anyone else is extremely questionable.

It's my understanding you want to support the legalization of marijuana (is that correct?), but what of the other people who would have to live with the consequences? The rest of the people of your state or the nation do not deserve to live with a set of laws or criminal codes which were written by people who've proven themselves incapable of respect, unable to conform, and unwilling or inable to consider the logical outcomes of those laws.

If you can't show self-control in the living room, why should you be trusted at the ballot box?

The program sounds like a good one; but whether or not it's effective depends on you. You have the opportunity to show yourself able to conform to society, able to make a worthwhile contribution, and to help ensure this program remains viable for others in the same situation.

But be warned -in a few years you'll be an adult. Those 'special protections' go up in smoke with the birthday candles, and hitting anyone will be a felony. If you think CARE is restrictive, you should see maximum security! You can permanently lose your rights to vote, your rights to carry a firearm, your rights to move from state to state....all in a single moment of carelessness or anger.

Appeal to common belief: Because a group of people ("Children") are viewed as incapable of making informed decisions, it must apply to me, too.

Incorrect.

It is not up to the government to decide what is considered "obscene". And the constitution itself does not say that it does not apply to children.

Another fallacy-- because I disturbed the peace, whatever I support is instantly invalid.

I promised I wouldn't respond to any more stupid people who think this issue is about me. This will be the last time.

This kind of thinking-- that anyone convicted of anything should instantly lose all rights or should be put into the position where all their rights can be lost-- sickens and scares me.

Also, you talk about "unable to conform to society". Are you implying one needs to be a yes-man to the government, or "one of the sheep"?

Your thinking is deeply troubling, and even reminds me of Nazism. This will be the last I respond to you.

rikzilla

30th June 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by blackpriester

You know Rikzilla, for once my Liberal heart agrees with you.
There are SOME values which should never change.

It is fun to find something to agree on every once in a while eh? Sadly, some of the most obvious and apparent truths in this world go right over the heads of the self absorbed individuals we commonly call "teenagers". Arrgh!

I have a 16 year old daughter with green hair and enough hoops through her ears to hold a standard shower curtain. She's so convinced of her advanced knowledge that school teachers and parents have nothing to offer that she doesn't already know better. :rolleyes: But at least she is not violent!

How any of us survived the terminal stupidity of the teen age years is the only real miracle.

-z

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

It is fun to find something to agree on every once in a while eh? Sadly, some of the most obvious and apparent truths in this world go right over the heads of the self absorbed individuals we commonly call "teenagers". Arrgh!

I have a 16 year old daughter with green hair and enough hoops through her ears to hold a standard shower curtain. She's so convinced of her advanced knowledge that school teachers and parents have nothing to offer that she doesn't already know better. :rolleyes: But at least she is not violent!

How any of us survived the terminal stupidity of the teen age years is the only real miracle.

-z

What is this obvious and apparent truth you speak of?

I agree that I should be on the CARE program. I do not agree that the CARE program should be able to dictate what type of posters and music people in it are allowed to listen to.

I'm arguing not my situation but the concept, but some people here are too stupid and pig-headed (rikzilla) to understand that.

rikzilla

30th June 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

What is this obvious and apparent truth you speak of?

I agree that I should be on the CARE program. I do not agree that the CARE program should be able to dictate what type of posters and music people in it are allowed to listen to.

I'm arguing not my situation but the concept, but some people here are too stupid and pig-headed (rikzilla) to understand that.

I beg your pardon, but I am not the one under the supervision of the state for battering my mother.

If you want stupid and pigheaded you need to find a mirror.

-z

DragonLady

30th June 2003, 12:11 PM

I'm arguing not my situation but the concept, but some people here are too stupid and pig-headed (rikzilla) to understand that.

No, we're not too stupid. I've read the entire thread -every whine, moan, shout and gripe of it. Forgive me if I've gotten my facts wrong, but you haven't answered most of the questions that've been asked, and you haven't provided most of the details that would help us give you specific advice.

You are talking to a very large group of people with extremely diverse backgrounds and experience with all kinds of situations. By telling us we're too stupid to survive, you're denying us our hard earned experience and saying that our lives & the lessons we've learned are lies and mistakes. If you really feel that way, why bother asking us? Do you believe asking the villiage idiot is a good way to determine the facts of something?

I spent several years in the foster care program; and faced many of the same situations you find -without having committed any crime at all. I was deprived of my parents, was seperated from my siblings, had to live with limitations on my behavior that were frankly rediculous. For instance, I had to eat a sugar-free diet because sugar was a 'drug' under the bylaws of the program I was in. I wasn't allowed to have a razor to shave, nail polish or enough money to use a telephone (in case I ran away). I was limited in what I could wear, what I could read and what I could listen to. The list of "can'ts" was as long as my arm. And I had done nothing wrong.

I also griped about my "rights" -and consequently was shown in no uncertain terms that as a minor I didn't have any.

You believe this program should've been tailor made to suit you -in fact, it seems you believe every criminal punishment should be tailored to suit the particular crime committed.

Well, it just doesn't work that way. If you're really so passionate in your beliefs, then straighten up your act, get an education & become a lawyer like Cleopatra suggested. She is an extremely bright lady who seems willing to help you understand the intricacies of the situation.

But in the meantime, stop acting so surprised that you're treated just like every other person who landed in this program. The state has neither the time, the money nor the sympathetic mind set required to make individual incarceration programs for every criminal. Sorry, but in the real world the accountants convicted of theft are thrown right into the same cells with the murders, the rapists and all the other criminals. The only 'categorization' depends on the level of security of the individual facilities they're housed in.

But if you want to protest that system, you are completely free to do so after you've served your sentence.

Because a group of people ("Children") are viewed as incapable of making informed decisions, it must apply to me, too.

Aren't you a child? You're certainly acting like one. Do you think shoving your mother was an informed decision based on all the facts? If so, why are you griping about the consequences? You must've known this - or worse - is what would happen. If you did not know that, then you were not informed and couldn't make informed decisions.

It is not up to the government to decide what is considered "obscene". And the constitution itself does not say that it does not apply to children.

No, the states decide that. I don't know about the particular statutes or any of the fine points of the laws or the decisions, but I know that states are considered to have vested interests in keeping children out of whatever muck they're able to find, and to prevent them from being victimized -either by themselves or others. Cleopatra or Crossbow may be able provide that.

Once again if you disagree which what they've decided, become a lawyer & go argue about it. Once you've grown up & proven you can handle law school, your credibility will have been restored, and people will be willing to listen to your views and consider your experiences.

This kind of thinking-- that anyone convicted of anything should instantly lose all rights or should be put into the position where all their rights can be lost-- sickens and scares me.

It's not "anyone convicted of anything". It's only those convicted of felonies. You pled guilty to 'disturbing the peace'; but that doesn't change the fact that your crime was a felony assault. If you had pled innocent, you would've probably been convicted of said assault, and you'd be in a whole lot more trouble than you are. But that plea agreement doesn't fool the people who run the program -they know you as a violent individual.

Also, you talk about "unable to conform to society". Are you implying one needs to be a yes-man to the government, or "one of the sheep"?

Absolutely not. Those of us who've never committed felonies can make our views known through legal channels -by voting. I disagree with a great many of the decisions our government makes, but I protest them in legal ways and through discussion with other credible people. I am as far from a "yes man" as someone can get -and not just because I'm a woman.

Your thinking is deeply troubling, and even reminds me of Nazism.

Uh huh. :confused: Because I believe you have been fairly -under the law- curtailed of some of your freedoms because of your own actions that makes me a Nazi? See, this is where your credibility begins to fail. You know next to nothing about my political views, but you want to compare me with a genocidal dictatorship.

This will be the last I respond to you.

Oh, goody! I notice your decision not to respond to me didn't preclude asking me a bunch of questions. I'm expected to respond to you but you don't respect me enough to try to have a reasonable discussion.

Cleopatra

30th June 2003, 04:31 PM

Although it's kind of late here( maybe you would like to reconsider about this lawyer thing , it has a lot of work;) ) , I have something to add.

Lord Kenneth, take Dragon Lady, for example. Could you ever tell by her first post that she has been in your shoes once and under worse conditions and she can understand how you feel, more than anybody here? :) Nope!

So, I tonight from my part, I took another lesson. I must try to focus in the essence and not in the tone, especially when the person who talks to me is older and has more experience. In "the children business", Dragon Lady is more experienced than me, she has four, I have none. So, even if her writing style pisses me off, I have to listen to her. This is a smart thing for me to do.

Tomorrow I will go to the library to study and get prepared for our conversation.

DragonLady

30th June 2003, 05:05 PM

So, I tonight from my part, I took another lesson. I must try to focus in the essence and not in the tone, especially when the person who talks to me is older and has more experience. In "the children business", Dragon Lady is more experienced than me, she has four, I have none. So, even if her writing style pisses me off, I have to listen to her. This is a smart thing for me to do.

Point taken. I don't intentionally write with such heavy hand, and I do re-read what I've written before I post...but my tone does get a little overbearing. I see it when I re-read my words a few hours later. You just have to remember that I am a mother to three teenagers, and am used to laying down the law. ;)

reprise

30th June 2003, 05:46 PM

DC, one of the reasons I decided to resume study was my absolute frustration with the outcomes being produced by the criminal justice system.

Your concern seems to be with civil liberties in general rather than solely how they impact on the justice behemoth - that simply means that there are even more fields of study and future careers open to you through which you can influence the system which you believe to be broken. In addition to what you can do at a professional level, you can still have input into the system through political lobbying and through voting when you attain the age of majority.

You clearly have the energy and the motivation to focus yourself towards defined objectives, why not start refining those objectives now and investigating pathways which will lead to you being in a position to influence the system both from within and without?

NoZed Avenger

30th June 2003, 06:15 PM

This reminds me of a conversation that I had in Criminal Procedure with a fellow student.

We were discussing search and seizure, and the professor pointed out that even after Ybarra - a case requiring police to have "particular, individualized suspicion" against a person, the police were regularly searching people for weapons without meeting the criteria set forth by the Court.

Keep in mind, the Court did not accept the police's contention that they feared for their safety in some situations and needed to do a quick weapons frisk. Nevertheless, the police kept doing the searches, even knowing that they could not use anything discovered in the search (all excluded). The professor felt that their continuing to do it showed that the police were sincere when they said they were doing it to protect themselves.

At that point, my acquaintance grew indignant. Our conversation went as follows:

Her:
"Well, if I were in a bar and the cop wanted to frisk me for a weapon, I would just tell him that he's violating my constitutional rights."

Me:
"That's right, ma'am. And if you move your hands too quick I'll shoot your *ss, too. Now turn around and put your hands on the bar."

I don't really think that this post will accomplish anything, but I hope it amused someone reading.

NA

Badger

30th June 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

I barely "infringed" on her righhts, I basically just shoved her around a little bit.

No, the punishment is being put in the CARE program, which I myself don't know much about but it's basically for the state to keep an eye on kids in the program. It's not very flexible, because putting me in house arrest certainly doesn't help a kid who has social anxiety and doesn't have much friends in the first place -- some might consider this kid needs to get out more. :rolleyes:

This is not PUNISHMENT, this is THOUGHT POLICING.

I am not deprived of the right to have posters in my room-- I am not allowed to have posters in my room supporting a PARTICULAR political view.

It is disturbing how easily the government slips in censorship and many sit idling by, smiling.

I understand I cannot go outside without being with my parents and having to call out-- it makes perfect sense for what I did (although too harsh).

Also, if my mom herself would have been able to choose, she would have let me get home without anything. Being put in this program is the only way I could get home. She now possibly regrets pressing charges (she couldn't drop them).

The point of government punishment should be to rehabilitate the person who commited the crime-- and possibly to pay retribution to those the crime was commited to. In this case, it is to help me and protect my family.

Restricting what views I should be allowed around, however, is censorship, and is inexcusable.

I am a libertarian, if you did not notice. I have a funny inkling you are not.

What if one of the rules were, specifically, no anti-Christian posters or no anti-abortion posters? Other posters would be allowed, except one expressing such views. This is, obviously, an attempt on controlling one's ideas. If one has a political opinion, they should be allowed to express it in THEIR OWN HOME if it is not done in a way which causes harm to others.

Not only do you obviously have little respect or understanding for/of people's rights, but you don't even understand the point of being punished, or why punishments need to be relevant to the crime.

No, frankly, you don't seem to be a libertarian. You spout the jargon, but when someone exercises their right to have a differing opinion from you, you tend to react like a totalitarian, with you making the rules.

Yes, I'm a libertarian, by the definition of the word, but not a member of the part as I do not live in the states.

With regards to your comments on thought police, it seems to me that they only police those whom restrictions have been placed upon (ie. convicted felons). You are not allowed posters and cd's as a consequence of your actions. Those in prison are not allowed pornographic material as a consequence of their actions. That's pretty clear cut.

The government enforces the laws that society deems necessary, in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world, so sometimes power gets abused. I fight against what I perceive as bad laws, by the way, as an attempt to bring things closer to this ideal world.

As a side note, I don't think your mother did you any favours by trying to drop charges. She didn't allow you to reap the full consequences of your actions (as society deems those consequences to be), and therefore you learned less than you possibly could have.