ANSWERS: 3
  • See article: https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/sep/26/claims-mislead-about-california-bill-forcing-jail-/ It is noted by politifact that the maximum sentence should only apply, according to sentencing guidelines, if the act was done repeatedly with malintent. I agree; however, I also feel it is necessary to point out an adjacent topic that judges these days rarely follow sentencing guidelines. For example, infamously, Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences plus forty years for starting the silk road website, which was a website where people traded bitcoin for drugs. The courts were unable to prove that he had done so with the intent to do anyone harm, and it was the first time he was convicted of a crime. The maximum allowable sentence for his conviction was life (for being drug-related) plus 26 years. The recommended sentence for his conviction was 16 years. Again, he got double life plus 40, double the maximum allowable sentence. My point is that sentencing guidelines don't mean anything.
  • I think so. The government should not be in the the business of dictating speech. That's a big slope to be on as inevitably the government will dictate that you can't speak against the government. History tells us that. Now, if the healthcare professional's EMPLOYER wants to do that, that's fine, as long as it's the employer and not the government dictating to individuals. That goes along with my assertion that hate speech is free speech.
    • bostjan64
      I generally agree with you, with a few very minor caveats: 1. An employer ought not to have the power to jail someone, and any punitive fines should be restricted to the terms of their employment, i.e. if the person quits before their pay can be docked for a punitive fine imposed by an employer, the employer is out of luck. 2. There is maybe a healthy discussion about what hate speech and free speech are and are not; however, in this political climate, simply getting the two sides to agree to have a productive discussion about it is highly unlikely.
    • Archie Bunker
      Well, an employer cannot jail anyone. Only the state can put people in jail which means you had to break some kind of law. As far as free speech and hate speech, a lot of what you're seeing now, especially on college campuses, you can't even express a different point of view without being labeled as something bad. People forget that it's freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech.
    • mushroom
      @Archie Bunker Is libelous speech also protected?
    • Archie Bunker
      I think you know the answer to that question, shroom. Libel and defamation are not protected. Advocating drug use in school is not either. Nor is threatening the President of the United States or burning your draft card.
    • bostjan64
      "Advocating drug use in school" You talking about Morse v Frederick? That's an interesting debate on its own. I tend to think the courts made their call for the wrong reasons in that case...
    • Archie Bunker
      I think the schools have a compelling reason to limit some speech in school and I agree with Justice Thomas about the Tinker case.
    • bostjan64
      Free speech inside of a school or about a school? I just want to make sure I understand. If someone outside of school grounds yells something about doing bong hits in school for Jesus, should they be punished by the law?
    • Archie Bunker
      In that particular case I agree with the law as it was a school function. Outside of school, do what you want.
  • Well then if my chosen pronoun is 'the sexy lady with the rockin' bod' I can get them in a catch 22 for sexually harassing me. Not to mention it'd be a lie! Hahahahaha! I was reading that list the other day of what is and is not harassment and I was tempted to say them all to my doctor just to see if it goes both ways.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy