Karaoke Forums

Hiteck, not necessarily. You may knowingly know that robbing a bank is illegal but though you are robbing said bank, you may not be doing it willingly (someone is either threatening you or a loved one and you are being forced to rob it). Knowing and willing are two different things.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Guess my sarcasm in my post didn't show as well as I thought it did.

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

It also appears as though the president has gained a new power to extend secret Service protection to anyone for any reason by simply scribbling a note.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

I'm not sure when the Secret Service website was updated last (knowing governments probably been a little while), it seems the President already had that power:

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq1

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

But now the SS can stop/hush any one they feel is a THREAT to the President for any anti-President posters, shouting, flag waving, bull horning, etc., anywhere the SS is present. This is definately a step in the wrong direction unless that is the direction you want the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to turn towards.

I know it may seem a bit like magic, but one of the skills commonly taught in law school is that of statutory interpretation, which is moored by certain principles. In the case of the Constitution, we tend to be guided by the extensive writings that were left behind by the people who wrote the Constitution--particularly including the Federalist papers, authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, which provide a huge amount of insight into the thoughts and reasoning of the Framers of the Constitution.

The bottom line is that this law has been on the books for quite a long time. It was modified to make it more clear--the previous law seemed to make it a crime to enter into a protected area, regardless of whether you were authorized to be there or not, while the new law makes it clear that you have to be there without authorization for it to be a crime.

I recognize that politics tends to inform our views of certain things and to transform perfectly innocuous acts into high treason when performed by those with whom we might disagree. I doubt anyone would seriously advocate for the idea that intentionally breaking into the White House shouldn't be a crime, but when seen through the shades of politics, an act designed to clarify that yes, you can be arrested for being in the White House without permission, can seem like an odious attempt to stifle dissent. One would hope that anyone told that any President had quietly signed a law outlawing free speech would attempt to look up the law and decide for themselves, rather than accepting it as true because one respects the messenger. If the last twenty years or so have taught us anything it is that modern journalism is designed not so much to enlighten as to inflame, regardless of the slant the journalist takes.

I think there is also a lesson there when it comes to statements about karaoke lawsuits.

Not true.
If you have information that contradicts what I posted, please post the contradiction.
Posting a link to a page expecting someone to scour through looking for something to back your claim isn't adequate evidence of the validity of your claim.

The proof of my truth lies within:
http://www.allmyfaves.com/

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Earthling, what the heck was that link other than a bunch of corporate logos. In my link, the second FAQ is Who does the Secret Service protect?. It doesn't require much effort.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Here come 'da judge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg&feature=player_embedded

Chip, Now that's what I'm talking about. My earlier statements are pretty much backed up by a pretty influential Judge/lawyer, Andrew Napolitano, that I bet has a very good understanding of "freedom of speech" issues. He is clearly informing us to be watchful of these developements.

Exactly. If you let your rights get tippy-toed on one day- because it doesn't hurt much, they'll be walked on the next and stomped on after that.... by the time you really feel it, it'll be too late.

I'll be waiting for the Presidential debates to see just who gets arrested for jumping up and saying to either candidate YOU SUCK. Both will have SS protection... guess the SS will have their hands full in a few months..... Hmmm just realized something we have been calling it SS....weren't those initials used by some other party trying to overtake the world?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Schutzstaffel