California Banning the Bible
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
p.s. And then there's the not-so-little matter of the First Amendment, an obstruction any effort to ban Bible sales would never be able to circumvent.
Surely you don't believe that. The SCOTUS has been known to invent rights and take away rights that are clearly there. Examples are Gay Marriage (not that there is any such real thing) and Abortion.
-
All lawyers are not created equal in skills and competencies. Look at Mr. Trump so-called lawyers.
CM -
@reformed said:
Surely you don't believe that. The SCOTUS has been known to invent rights and take away rights that are clearly there. Examples are Gay Marriage (not that there is any such real thing) and Abortion.I'm thinking we're more alike than different when it comes to the things we post, reformed. I don't post as my beliefs things I don't believe; and I bet you don't either. So yes, I do surely believe that the First Amendment is an obstruction any effort to ban Bible sales would never be able to circumvent.
Since you've not responded favorably to any of my several invitations to engage substantively on the content of the law to which you've drawn our attention in this thread, I offer you a standing invitation to do so, should you ever desire. No attorneys. No magazine articles. Just your reading of the law and mine. I think it would be helpful and satisfying. The invitation's open.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Surely you don't believe that. The SCOTUS has been known to invent rights and take away rights that are clearly there. Examples are Gay Marriage (not that there is any such real thing) and Abortion.I'm thinking we're more alike than different when it comes to the things we post, reformed. I don't post as my beliefs things I don't believe; and I bet you don't either. So yes, I do surely believe that the First Amendment is an obstruction any effort to ban Bible sales would never be able to circumvent.
Since you've not responded favorably to any of my several invitations to engage substantively on the content of the law to which you've drawn our attention in this thread, I offer you a standing invitation to do so, should you ever desire. No attorneys. No magazine articles. Just your reading of the law and mine. I think it would be helpful and satisfying. The invitation's open.
I will do that, but first I have a question for you, do you think it is reasonable to use the bill summary in this task, or do you insist on legalese?
-
@reformed said:
I will do that, but first I have a question for you, do you think it is reasonable to use the bill summary in this task, or do you insist on legalese?
I insist on fact-based assertions of truth. So when a summary of the bill accurately reports its provisions, of course it's reasonable to make use of it. Inaccurate bill summaries, however, mislead their readers and contaminate the uses those readers make of them.
In the case of the California law, in my view, the bill's presentation design makes it simple to limit the amount of time spent reviewing the content of the the law itself.
- There's a section of definitions, only a few of which are relevant to our discussion
- And some findings of fact, which are interesting but not essential to our debate
- And finally a section of provisions, only one or two of which apply. (I search for the word "sexual" to find relevant components of the bill; works well)
- Specific to our discussion, the applicable provision is part of a section that has a heading, a sentence that categorizes the items in which that applicable provision appears. In the California law, that heading identifies its provisions as "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction."
Bottom line: In my view...
- As a rule, original sources are preferable to summaries (sorry, Cliff Notes!
) - The law itself is the most accurate report of the bill's content
- It's not "legalese" to expect summaries to report accurately the content they summarize.
I hope that helps.
