Yet another neo-conservative violation of the 1st Ammendment.

[TerroristHater]

ATLANTA Jun 20, 2006 (AP)— A civil liberties group filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new Georgia law that restricts where convicted child molesters can live and work, arguing it essentially bans offenders from most of the state's urban and suburban areas.

The law, believed to be among the nation's toughest, sets 1,000-foot buffers for convicted child *** offenders around all school bus stops, churches, schools, child-care centers and other places where children congregate.

"Thousands of people on Georgia's *** offender registry will be forced, by legislative fiat, to evacuate their homes, leave their jobs, cease attending their churches and abandon court-mandated treatment programs," the lawsuit says.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to say it but the law above is a violation of the 1st Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, rights individual liberties and unimportant to neo-con ******** who believe that people need to be "RULED" as opposed to democratically governed.

This law prevents people from practicing their religious beliefs and is therefore a complete and total 1st ammendment violation.

This law is proof that Sonny Purdue's neo-con *** needs to be removed from office. We have to prevent neoscum from stealing liberty from even the worst among us. If we fail to do so, they will eventually find a reason to steal the liberty of GOOD people.




Sonny Purdue is obviously a **** ******* who needs a dirt nap.

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

TH, tell us the truth.... Are you a pedophile? I mean seriously, the only two things that get you worked up are terrorists and pedos getting what they deserve.

At any rate you went on and on about this same subject a few months back and you never explained how exactly (in your most worthy oppinion ) these laws infringe on pederasses rights (as if a convicted pedo has or deserves any rights in the first place)

 

[TerroristHater]

TH, tell us the truth.... Are you a pedophile? I mean seriously, the only two things that get you worked up are terrorists and pedos getting what they deserve.
At any rate you went on and on about this same subject a few months back and you never explained how exactly (in your most worthy oppinion ) these laws infringe on pederasses rights (as if a convicted pedo has or deserves any rights in the first place)

No, MRIH, I am not a pedoscum. This law is illegal on its face because it seeks to ban people from church. This is a fundemental violation of the rights given to ALL AMERICANS by our forefathers.

Specifically, the 1st ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In passing the aforementioned law, the **** state of Georgia and its neoscum governer violated this ammendment. As such, the Georgia has commited a crime against all Americans.

I realize I often sound like I support pedophiles and thier rights. That is not the case. I support the rights of the people of the United States of America, and I will oppose any neoscum/neolib ********** who tries to steal liberty.

On this subject, Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty for a little extra security deserve neither security nor liberty." Benjamin Franklin was exactly correct.

As a vertern of the armed forces, I find it particularly offensive when neoscum take it upon themselves to steal the liberty I fought to protect.

I will not be a party to the theft of essential liberty from any section of the American population, regardless of who they are or what they have done.

Sonny Purdue is a **** ******* who needs a dirt nap.

 

[ParasiteGod]

If pedophiles want rights, maybe they should try not ******* little kids.

I'm all for the 1st Ammendment and everything, but why in the **** should I, or anyone, feel sorry for some child raping scumbag? OH NOES BUBBA BABYRAPE CAN'T GO TO THA GAWSHDANG CHURCH NO MORE CUZ HEZ ALL INTO THEM KIDZ N SHEEYIT!!! Cry me a river. What do you expect us to do, let them live around everyone else??? Everyone else, and their CHILDREN????

Good news, TH. You don't need to go to church to practice religion. Yeah sure it's traditional, but who gives fuckall about those anymore?

Our "rights" as Americans are really just priviledges, you know.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh jeeze...herre we go again. We beat this to death last time.

I'll make it short and sweet here.

1. Congress has made no law "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so there has been no violation.

2. The penal code is clear in it's ability to limit the movements of convicted criminals placed on PROBATION.

3. The person in question is a convicted criminal and is ON PROBATION and therefore subject to the rules given forth unto them by the magistrate who rendered the sentence.

4. Just because you are not incarcerated means that you are no longer a prisoner. If you are on probation, then you ARE A PRISONER, make no mistake about that. The court system has just seen fit to trust you to serve out your remaining sentence unincarcerated PROVIDED that you DO AS THEY SAY! That is all.

5. Most states, as part of their Penal Code, created by the elected legislature and ratified by the Governor, have laws which deal with the status of "Registered *** Offenders". These are real, valid, enforceable laws. They are not "unconstitutional".

6. Just as criminals who are incarcerated can not attend a particular church or synagogue or temple yet are allowed to participate in religious ceremonies within the prison, have not had their right violated, neither has the parolee. They can still have individual faith, worship, and can even make use of the lay organizations of the clergy who go to peoples homes. Heck, they can even go to the services at college religious centers, senior centers, etc., just not where CHILDREN are.

You'll also find it quite interesting to note that there is no religion which has the religious duty of congregation or attendance of a service at a building. None.

MRIH is right. You get awfully worked up over this one.

 

[smutt butt]

TH, tell us the truth.... Are you a pedophile? I mean seriously, the only two things that get you worked up are terrorists and pedos getting what they deserve.
At any rate you went on and on about this same subject a few months back and you never explained how exactly (in your most worthy oppinion ) these laws infringe on pederasses rights (as if a convicted pedo has or deserves any rights in the first place)

if convicted pedo's were executed, as they should be, immediately then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

hey mrih, was that you that threw that pig head into the mosque?

i had a similar idea. i wanted to feed a couple of hogs 20-30lbs. of slop each and then give them each a quart of castor oil. they could be set loose in a mosque to roam after that.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

A Guide to Understanding HB 1059:


the Georgia *** Offender Legislation

Brief Summary of HB 1059

This bill:

Establishes mandatory sentence of 25 to 50 years in prison for kidnapping if the victim is less than 14 years old; for rape, regardless of the age of the victim; for aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery; and for incest if the victim is less than 14.

Creates crimes of aggravated assault "with intent to rape a child less than 14 years," with a 25- to 50-year prison sentence; and aiding, abetting or harboring a *** offender, with a sentence of 5 to 20 years in prison.

Includes "Romeo and Juliet" provisions that make certain *** crimes a misdemeanor if the victim is 14 or 15 and the defendant no more than three years older to allow for 'youthful indiscretions' between willing teenage partners.

Requires that anyone convicted of a serious violent felony (murder or felony murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery) and sentenced to life in prison serve a minimum of 30 years in prison before consideration for parole, sixteen years more than current law.

Any *** offender deemed a sexually dangerous predator by the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board would have to wear a global positioning satellite electronic monitor for the rest of his or her life.

Prohibits registered *** offenders from living, working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate." It also makes it illegal for child *** offenders or sexually dangerous predators to loiter in those areas.

So what's so bad here? I can see the reason why the bus stop Temporary Restraining Order was granted because that is not practical, but the other stuff, give me one good reason why sexual scum shouldn't comply!

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

By TH's logic then anyone who is incarcerated is being denied their first amendment rights because they can't live within 1000 feet of a church either (or a 1000 ft from anything, because their ******* locked up!)

 

[ImWithStupid]

Oh jeeze...herre we go again. We beat this to death last time.
I'll make it short and sweet here.

1. Congress has made no law "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so there has been no violation.

2. The penal code is clear in it's ability to limit the movements of convicted criminals placed on PROBATION.

In addition to this part of CES' synopsis and the rest of his well wrote explanation, when one commits a crime, especially a felony, you no longer are entitled to all of the rights and privileges of the non-offending part of the population. This would include no longer being able to vote and no longer being able to possess firearms. This limitation of where convicted pedophiles can go to protect our most vulnerable members of society, including churches, is no different then these other rights that are suspended due to their criminal behavior.

 

[ToriAllen]

I hate to say it

 

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

hey mrih, was that you that threw that pig head into the mosque?

I really, really, REALLY wished I could claim that, but alas, twasn't me.

 

[TommyGun1928]

Our terrorist-hating friend is amoung the many American people who look towards the archaic written works of the first lawmakers of their country, mostly the first amendment, as means to deploy derisive rhetoric when it comes to the justification of certain practices. If one is to take these old texts written by overly democratic idealists without any restriction, the entire said government would be in a state of anarchy, with everybody saying what they want, when they want, to whomever they want. People who have murdered, cheated the system, stolen or committed any given severe crime would still be considered when a nation-wide opinion is needed for, say, an election.

I am frankly tired of that sort of thing. It's about time the American Government would take the initiative to repeal these old, overly idealistic laws. People, when left to their own devices, become unruly without any gorvernmental intervention, which is why it exists in the first place. Thus is becomes clear that no system can be purely democratic.

There is absolutely no reason to fear being told what to do. Members of most religions find themselves caught having to do exactly what is instructed to them by their given diety for an eternity. What's the harm in allowing yourself to be kept in order along with the rest? The world's population is simply too large for our rulers to cater to individualistic demands!

 

[ImWithStupid]

Nice post TommyGun,

I don't agree that the laws need to be repealed, but people do need to realize that the Constituion and it's amenments are a living document and are subject to interpretation.

That interpretion can and will change with time.

 

[TommyGun1928]

Nice post TommyGun,
I don't agree that the laws need to be repealed, but people do need to realize that the Constituion and it's amenments are a living document and are subject to interpretation.

That interpretion can and will change with time.

Of course, your right. It's not my place to challenge democracy here... at least not yet... (vote Tommy for Socialist Party 2028!!)

But yes, you are correct in saying that. I'm having a hard time figuring out why the government is so afraid to change a law just because it's a few hundred years old.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Of course, your right. It's not my place to challenge democracy here... at least not yet... (vote Tommy for Socialist Party 2028!!)

Socialist ehh?

I take it you and Komrad Vostok Hazard (KVH) will be getting along quite well.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/member.php?u=306

 

[TommyGun1928]

Socialist ehh?
I take it you and Komrad Vostok Hazard (KVH) will be getting along quite well.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/member.php?u=306

What? No! He's a commie *******. I'm a different kind of socialist. And it's about damned time people started trembling before my leather-gloved, red spandex-wearing socialist self.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

What? No! He's a commie *******. I'm a different kind of socialist. And it's about damned time people started trembling before my leather-gloved, red spandex-wearing socialist self.

LMAO!

This guy is articulate, can spell, and is funny; I saw we keep him around.

 

[TommyGun1928]

LMAO!
This guy is articulate, can spell, and is funny; I saw we keep him around.

I can articulate many things. Specifically, things that I say. For instance, when I refer to myself as a more general socialist, as opposed to our favourite commies *******.

That having been said, this is a completely useless post, considering the poster has probably drunk the entire bottle by now.

 

[hugo]

If one is to take these old texts written by overly democratic idealists without any restriction, the entire said government would be in a state of anarchy, with everybody saying what they want, when they want, to whomever they want. People who have murdered, cheated the system, stolen or committed any given severe crime would still be considered when a nation-wide opinion is needed for, say, an election.

Your vocabulary greatly exceeds your knowledge of the constitution. The necessary powers of the federal government are in Article 1 Section 8. The limitations on the federal government's powers did not mean anarchy. The states had the power to punish criminals pretty much however they saw fit. The bill of rights did not apply to the states before the 14th Amendment and subsequent court decisions that expanded the 14th way above the intents of it's authors. There is nothing in the Constitution granting felons the right to vote.