Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
18. I understand your point ... I for one don't believe that someone who gets, say ... a DUI ...
Sat Dec 23, 2017, 05:12 AM
Dec 2017

Even if it's their 10th DUI ... should be legally barred from drinking alcohol (unless they're in jail) ... because drinking alcohol is a legal act for adults in this country.

HOWEVER ... if, in order to avoid a more stringent sentence, you yourself STIPULATE, via a 'plea deal' that you are waiving that particular 'right' ... then you need to capitulate to 'the system' and do ... what you've agreed to do ... as part of said 'plea deal'.

Which I'm pretty sure is likely the case in this particular instance. The 'gag order' was agreed to by the criminal at hand .. and therefore, they've waived their '1st Amendment Right' ...

Seems pretty straight-forward. I mean, people don't get to even vote (another very basic right) in most states if they have recent (or even in some cases, ANY) felonies on their record.

To me that also friggin' sucks ... even if you've 'done your time' you're still a 'felon who can't vote'. That seems VERY f***ing wrong to me. But ... it's apparently within the law.

And TBH, I pretty much feel the same about 'sex offender registries' ... but I'm not getting into that here. We LOVE those here at DU, so ... I won't rock the boat with my personal feelings about the subject ... And no, I'm not on one, never have been, never will be. But don't agree with them in principle, unless you're on parole/probation.

Would the cause be spreading Vlads word? dhol82 Dec 2017 #1
They seem incapable of following the law and simple clear cut orders from the judge. Irish_Dem Dec 2017 #2
They believe the law does not apply to them BumRushDaShow Dec 2017 #4
They are a group of sociopaths and narcissists who believe laws are not for them, Irish_Dem Dec 2017 #5
The word, incorrigible, is pertinent here. Maraya1969 Dec 2017 #3
lock 'em up Botany Dec 2017 #6
Trump was off a bit SCantiGOP Dec 2017 #8
Revoke his bail, throw him in the slammer. George II Dec 2017 #7
I could live with that Angry Dragon Dec 2017 #9
That sounds like an excellent idea Phoenix61 Dec 2017 #10
Rich Folk Justice,,,,,,,,,,, Cryptoad Dec 2017 #12
Yeah, how many times is he going to violate the terms of his house arrest before they revoke it NBachers Dec 2017 #11
The Judge needs to stop being lenient with these criminals and lock them up. OliverQ Dec 2017 #13
1st Amendment MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #14
So you're fine with not complying with judicial instructions? Zorro Dec 2017 #15
Not fine with the order MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #16
I understand your point ... I for one don't believe that someone who gets, say ... a DUI ... mr_lebowski Dec 2017 #18
LOL. Sorry, but you don't know what the first amendment means. PSPS Dec 2017 #17
It isn't? MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #20
Of course it's a First Amendment issue. Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access 24601 Dec 2017 #21
6th Amendment MaupitiBlue Dec 2017 #22
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart n/t mobeau69 Dec 2017 #19
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge questions whether G...»Reply #18