Gromnir

personally, we do not believe that npc paladins should be affected by the player's dispositions. when may moons ago we suggested that paladins should have a talent available to them that would alter npc faith and convictions bonuses so that they would scale with level, we described it as a loyalty bonus. call the bonus unblemished loyalty or bushido (for the anime fans) if it makes you feel better. the player makes the disposition dialogue choices and justifiably gets disposition adjustment, but am not even certain what is the dispositions for pallegina. from a practical pov, we do not see much value in discouraging a player from creating a bleak walker or kind wayfarer paladin follower just 'cause the dispositions do not match. use loyalty to explain an otherwise practical choice. 'course in the interest o' full disclosure, since the 3.0 faiths and convictions for npcs works almost exact as Gromnir requested, we understandable see little need for change. then again, pc faith and convictions is current busted, so... regardless, most o' what the ie mod adds is not particular attractive or necessary for Gromnir enjoyment. am personally not getting the ui complaints, but we don't play at extreme resolutions. nevertheless, we understand that some folks are very displeased with the poe ui... Gromnir just ain't one o' those folks. being able to choose a different colored circle for each npc would be a welcome addition given how charlie fox poe combats can become, but we were never excited by the blue npc option. *shrug* there is any number o' changes we wish to see implemented for poe, but ie mod doesn't address most o' those desired changes. HA! Good Fun!

Why doesn't it cater to people who like random loot? No one is forcing them to look up the tables that list which day corresponds to which loot. And if you don't know, it'll be random as far as you're concerned. It won't be random though will it? I noticed that for me it wasn't really random because I seemed to always get the same loot from the same place. Then I heard that it's randomized depending on time. See I used to do thing pretty similarly on each run. People get stuck in a pattern with this system. Especially in the early game. There'll be more changes the further you get in the game, but then why not just have something better from the start? many/most drops in the game are fixed. however, in the eothasian (sp?) temple in gilded vale, the endless paths, and raedric's keep, there are a relative high number o' randomized loot points. HA! Good Fun!

it appears that he is smoking a cigarette. HA! Good Fun!

according to numerous crpg purists, respec diminishes the game. more than a few claim that respec is cheating, regardless o' how much the developers change mechanics from one build to the next. is a few who argue that regardless o' whether they personal make use o' respec, your capacity to do so results in diminution o' the title... am not gonna try and explain that complaint. *shrug* regardless, keep in mind that your ability to respec comes at a price. whenever you respec, thinks o' the poor grognards. never forget the true crpg fans, huddling in the dark corners o' the internet who will gnash their teeth and howl in fury 'cause they know that somebody, somewhere, has invested +30 hours into their current play o' poe and will not need restart the game to take advantage of new abilities and talents. you must not forget those poor wretched souls who will rage impotently each time they see the respec button when they access an inn menu. yes, these sad brutes may choose to reread their d&d white box edition or their merp rolemaster elves sourcebook as a panacea-- a desperate attempt to stave off an existential crisis. hopeless. you must not forget the purists. respec responsibly, for the purists. they may not deserve your sympathy, but they do suffer. HA! Good Fun!

folks overthink attributes with poe. is tough to have a broken spread as virtual any mix is gonna have advantages, particular with a class as flexible as the priest. wanna play a melee combat priest or a ranged combatant? maybe you prefer pure support? perhaps a balance 'tween support and combat? heck, the offensive spell casting repertoire o' a 3.0 priest is considerable, particular if you like to set things ablaze. we got an all-priest party that is a bit too powerful to be fun. the thing is, we made a dwarven priest who is very effective as a tank in spite of relative low health and endurance. our current potd run for 3.0 is using the following priest as our main: priest of eothas hearth orlan aedyr colonist m 14 c 9 d 10 p 15 i 15 r 15 stick a flail in his hands and he is a beast in combat. *shrug* am not needing to respec to play this character equal dominant in support, melee combat or as a ranged damage-dealer dependent on spells. such flexibility allows us to change party members w/o suffering a loss in overall combat efficacy. at the same time, with appropriate gear and resting bonuses, we rare miss any perception, intellect or resolve dialogue options. HA! Good Fun!

is more chaplinsky than brandenburg. brandenburg's incitement to violence exception is most typical used in cases where an individual is encouraging folks to perform acts o' violence. is a three part test requiring intent, imminence and likelihood. facts: a kkk guy gets on tv and says, “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken," and “the **** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.” Court strikes down the ohio conviction o' the d-bag kkk member. as reprehensible as were the words, the speaking were not likely to result in an IMMINENT and violent response from other d-bag kkk members. fighting words, as 'posed to incitement, is those utterances that the listener is likely to respond to with violence, but chaplinsky is... problematic. fighting words is Not protected speech, but the SCOTUS has refused to uphold a challenge based on chaplinsky since... well, ever. chaplinsky were the first, and last, successful fighting words case. fighting words is "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." unfortunate, lower state and fed courts has been kinda all over the place and the closest we got from SCOTUS is dicta that cross burning is likely verboten when is intended as a threat o' harm, so providing you with the rule is less than illuminating, eh? if it makes you feel better, angry muslims could march outside fenway park, set fire to the stars and stripes while spouting... well, pretty much every third qistina post. stuff 'bout american antichrist and how the west will burn. wouldn't offend the Constitution even if it angered almost every drunken southie sox fan. HA! Good Fun!

odd. am being informed that azzuro is at our stronghold for 7 days and 19 hours, but apparently he has nothing to sell. weird. HA! Good Fun!

better not have gd read or he will pop a blood vessel. the most common criticism o' the incitement to hatred provisions is that they is not defined and there is lack o' consistent application. regardless, the hate laws o' the eu is a morass as will become readily apparent to those who read. ... not that such has anything to do with ros misapprehensions. thanks for posting though. HA! Good Fun!

aside: oddly enough in the USA we do have one category o' "offensive" speech that may be abridged due to the class (legal class as 'posed to simple dictionary meaning) o' the listener. warning: sweary carlin's routine inspired a constitutional battle. the actual facts o' the case is kinda ridiculous and will make most roll their eyes. a ny radio station broadcasts the above during afternoons when kids as at school and the radio station adds a warning that hic svnt dracones. john douglas is driving his son to a dentist appointment during regular school hours and he fails to catch the warning before the mind o' his infant (trivia o' the day: common law legal infancy is one younger than eighteen) were warped by the offensive torrent o' vulgarity blaring from his amc pacer's radio. the father just happens to be part o' a an advocacy group: Morality in Media. were such an obvious set-up. regardless, the Court decides that government efforts to censor media broadcasts gets reduced scrutiny wherein goal is to protect the innocent children. is a decision based very little on the rule o' law. Gromnir's mentor observed that more than a couple fundamental rights decisions could be best explained by identifying the "victim"-- Cute Cases is what he called 'em. why does children, the mentally handicapped and amish get seeming special rulings that don't align logically with established Constitutional Jurisprudence? perhaps, at the end o' the day, Justices is ordinary folks who will let their sympathy guide their choices? anyways, we did wanna clarify that there is one situation where in the class o' the listener is relevant when deciding if offensive speech can be suppressed. HA! Good Fun! ps we don't actual know if mr. douglas' car were a pacer.

there is nothing ironic about gd's posting. "That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948." gd, and those like him, has been arguing the importance o' free speech since 1787... and before. given you can't cite 1948, we will use skokie. in 1977, the largely jewish community o' skokie illinois were understandably offended when illinois nazis chose to have a march through the streets o' their town. the reaction o' the community were predictable. most americans were offended by nazis parading down the streets of a quiet suburban town, but folks like gd were equal disturbed that the offensiveness o' speech could be provided as the rationale for denying a fundamental right to american citizens. if europe had waited until 1977 to suppress offensive speech in response to the plight o' the jewish community o' skokie, gd's current posting still would't result in irony. same scenario, but different year. perhaps you feel that the jewish americans o' 1948 or 1977 were hypocritical, but there is nothing ironic about GD'S behavior. his behavior is, thankfully, as predictable as were the folks living in skokie in 1977. americans have a far greater respect for free speech than does most europeans (am knowing this offends many europeans, but is an inescapable conclusion) so it should come as no shock at all that in 1787, 1977 or 2016, folks such as gd is raging 'bout liberty and the ease with which some enlightened folks were willing to give up that liberty. again, is precisely 'cause o'f folks like GD that America has a different perspective regarding free speech. call it arrogance or obtuse if you wish, but GD'S demands to preserve liberty is in no way ironic. again, duh. is no ironic, or quixotic, or hyperbolic that can be reasonable attributed to GD'S posting that you identified. the best you can argue is the hypocrisy o' some Americans... very predictable hypocrisy and is nothing particular ironic about hypocrisy. *insert more ros misapprehensions 'bout law* for chrissakes... the journalist article is much relevant given YOUR description o' how hate crimes work. "For an example of what not constitutes hate speech you have the statement "homosexuals are a cancerous tumor on society". What hate speech does encompass however, is for example the use of Nazi symbols in certain ways. It's not illegal with swastikas in games, movies, historical re-enaction et.c., but if you were to publicly hand out leaflets with swastikas, pictures of Hitler and an invitation to join your political party, that would be considered hate speech (but ONLY if this is done in the public sphere, so if I gave you one such invitation in a meeting between friends, it would not be illegal). Maybe you view hate speech laws as a slippery slope, but that's not how things have turned out in reality. So while I understand your criticism, as it turns out, this type of legislation does not end up being used wrongly." is possible you is confused, but is nothing remote like common law defamation or incitement... which is why the eu had to come up with new laws and why the USA has no such. you use wiki to misunderstand? shocking. regardless, the article is talking exact 'bout what you deem to be hate speech. you didn't actual read it, did you? incitement can be criminalized in the US. we criminalize incitement. article makes that very point. however, we don't have special rules for classes and categories o' people. "Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul burn a cross on a person's lawn in the US and you is likely gonna be criminalized for any number o' different violations o' state criminal codes. however, what we do not have is special categories o' crimes that is dependent on the race, color, creed, or gender o' the speaker or listener. HA! Good Fun! ps we keep writing 1948 as 1938. perhaps if we get an actual cite to a reputable source, we will be able to keep it straight in our noggin.

*groan* is so incredibly not ironic that jewish folks would be offended by nazi propaganda circa 1947. jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles. there is no irony that some group o' (as yet uncited) jewish americans would be offended and outraged. is also not the least bit ironic that America, as a whole, did not respond to the outrage of an offended minority group by suppressing free speech. your example is no more ironic than that American catholics and American christians were outraged enough by jon stewarts' vagina-manger that they demanded suppression. the outrage o' the offended is so freaking predictable that the Founding Fathers made our free speech protections part o' the Constitution so that simple majorities, moved by anger or guilt or whatever, could not dilute free speech protections. again, duh. the only irony is that the (hypothetical?) outraged jewish americans who wanted to suppress free speech and predictable got no traction in the US in 1947 were actual able to sway virtual all o' the rest o' the western world in suppressing Free Speech protections. what a hoot. once more, so is not forgotten, we add your original statement: "That's ironic you know, that you are so opposed to hate speech laws. The Swedish hate speech laws was initially pushed by American Jewish groups, after some wacko handing out Nazi propaganda became an international embarrassment in 1948." is not the least bit ironic. Americans like gd had to have been fighting against abridgment of free speech in 1948 or we woulda' ended up having our liberty encheapened here in the US. "for ****'s sake" is right. and we can't help you on your misapprehensions regarding the law. we thought the linked article did a fair job o' explaining the basics o' how hate is different than assaults and defamations. perhaps this confusion is resulting from obtuseness rather than misunderstanding. dunno. HA! Good Fun!

I am afraid you missed the point entirely. The irony was that while our hate speech laws was triggered by an international embarrassment and (among others) pressure from American (Jewish) groups, when I 70 years later go to an Internet forum, it is full of Americans who say that hate speech laws are the worst thing ever. If I was in your situation I would perhaps also be against hate speech laws, but I can only conclude that in practice, the law has not been misused the way Guard Dog hints at. I am not saying that hate speech laws is exactly the same as defamation and assault. I am saying that from my point of view, with the hate speech laws I am used to, I could see that what is covered by them could instead be covered by defamation and /or assault in different countries. When I say "defamation" I am referring to various roughly equivalent crimes across different countries which might not be defined the same way, same with "assault". When you read about US defamation and assault laws on Wikipedia it seems to cover everything that hate speech does here, apart from more implicit threats, which I guess constitutes the actual difference in practice. again, there is no irony that the group being attacked would be offended. jewish americans. jewish swedes. jewish poles. whatever. here in the US we got the First Amendment which protects, among other things, offensive speech. the same folks (Americans) who woulda complained that hate speech laws is repugnant to the first amendment in your uncited 1947 incidents has not disappeared. the same folks is fighting 'gainst the tyranny o' the majority. that is why First Amendment is different. once again, for those who missed. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419 but yeah, when jon stewart did his vagina-manger bit, many catholic and christian groups were outraged. many ignored the First Amendment 'cause o' their outrage. that isn't the least bit ironic. that is the expected outcome and it is precisely why we got the First Amendment. if all Americans were dedicated to resisting diminution o' Free Speech in every circumstance, there would be no need for a Constitutional Amendment to protect free speech. duh. and again, if is roughly equivalent crimes, then is no need to add fluff. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ defamation feels samish to you? *chuckle* and for chrissakes, how many times does Gromnir need chastise folks for using wikis as a source o'... anything. surely do not use to educate self 'bout law. no doubt that is the reason a few o' the self appointed legal pundits from these boards is so frequent making foolish and ridiculous statements. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure where you see reductio ad absurdum from us? "From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least)." were your absurdity, not ours. "Case in point: in the same situation, would you decry it as evil and objectively wrong from a moral standpoint if a nation would change its laws accordingly?" depends on what you mean by evil. we ain't used that term but regardless, personally we would never, under any circumstances, criminalize a man for the singular reason that he professed his belief in a divine power. make most extreme and ridiculous possible: even if the only way to save the species were to force a married woman to have multiple partners other than her husband, we would accept that the species weren't worth saving. However, much as your misguided "at all costs" notion were misplaced, we will note that despite Gromnir being much more interested in preserving personal liberties as 'posed to caving to the "tyranny of the majority," the US constitution can be amended. if one wishes to make hate speech or monogamous marriage or the worship o' a higher power criminal acts, the People can do so in the United States. "It's not a characterization of First Amendment privilege. It refers to the fundamental unwillingness to consider said privilege as anything but an unalienable right in any just society." now you ain't even responding to Gromnir. *shrug* am not certain what you hoped to achieve with your final point 'bout practicality. another mischaracterization perhaps? didn't think this were necessary, but might as well add. http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp the people can make hate speech a crime. we cannot think of justification save for more reductio ad absurdum, but the mechanic exists. HA! Good Fun!

Okay, now I literally have no idea what perspective are we trying to tackle the issue from. From a practical POV, I see the issue as irrelevant. Do hate speech laws affect the quality of life for citizens in countries that have them? Like, at all? I don't think they do (not to a statistically relevant degree, at least). From a philosophical POV, I see the issue as extremely malleable. Enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs is going to solve some problems (your society won't ever have the problem of silencing opinions diverging from those supporting the status quo) and run into some others (sometimes the status quo is really not that terrible to have, especially when the alternative is the ****ing nazis). In certain situations, it's better to have one, in others, the other. Admittedly, this is my completely uneducated opinion and I'm looking forward to seeing the problem from new angles I haven't considered yet (but am sure people who earn their living actually dealing with the tricky issues of lawmaking have). you want statistical evidence of improved quality of life resulting from a specific fundamental right? was that serious? ... really? pointless anyway... we hope. hypothetical: an incontrovertible statistical study shows that religion or monogamous marriage is ultimate harmful to a society. would that study convince you that laws providing for the freedom to worship or marriage to a single person should be repealed or abridged? and am also gonna take issue with your implied characterization o' First Amendment privilege as "enshrining free speech as a fundamental right to be protected at all costs." what does that mean? is likely borne of a misunderstanding. you wanna stand on a sidewalk or street outside o' a hospital and complain 'bout obamacare? sure, why the hell not? however, if you use a bullhorn to get your message across, and you blast your anger-filled tirade 24/7 so that you is disturbing patients, the cops will stop you and they will be justified in doing so. is not "at all costs." never has been. however, is damn clear that if the cost is abridging your speech for no reason other than that Gromnir were offended, then we see no difficulty in balancing. am suspecting that you would be offended (at least we hope so) by attempts to suppress purely academic arguments that run counter to whatever is the consensus o' economists, biologists or physicists, yes? why? are you confident enough -arrogant enough- to decide the truth that should be embraced by any discipline? no? is that kinda arrogance okay for social truths? personal truth? why should you decide? why should the majority be allowed to decide which truths is absolute or which opinions is too controversial? suppress? should such views have been suppressed? http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/02/magazine/tm-10501 did shockley's "science" cross the line? was his studies any less offensive than some random nazi in skokie quoting mein kampf? how does one measure benefit or harm? you got some kinda balancing test in mind? shockley were more offensive and dangerous than any number bigots, and his science (edit: apparently, we can't spell science. sheesh) ended up being discredited. does that make a difference? if the random bigot shouting on the street corner is quoting shockley, then what? doesn't matter. shouldn't matter. gd brought up orwell. is appropriate. "if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." HA! Good Fun! ps am hoping it is clear that we ain't a fan o' shockley. "In a Playboy interview, he aired his low opinion of his three children, of whom two were college graduates, one from Radcliffe and the other from Stanford. "In terms of my own capacities . . . [they] represent a very significant regression," he said. "My first wife--their mother--had not as high an academic-achievement standing as I had."" the guy were a d-bag... regardless o' his brobdingnagian scientific achievements in physics. his eugenics studies were largely discredited, which only embittered him further, but his efforts challenged many educated folks and their competing notions regarding the need for intellectual freedom, and a desire to suppress offensive speech. how does one do so? easy. don't.

if you have more pressing concerns, then is very difficult to claim that you have been injured to such a degree that the offending speaker should need have his rights abridged. and if the bigot has raised ten more concerns? so what? you have a similar opportunity to respond. if your only reason for suppressing the 1930s naacp member or communist is because you is offended and inconvenienced, then am gonna chuckle to see you laughed outta Court. this is exact the kinda thing we speak o' when we note the difference between european and American pov. use inconvenience o' the listener to abridge a Fundamental Right o' a speaker is unthinkable here in the United States... and thank goodness for that. oh, and the playing field is level. from the previous incarnation o' this thread: "Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules." r.a.v. v. city of st. paul HA! Good Fun!

On one hand, I can empathize with that. On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA. are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example? am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion. Touché Although I do feel compelled to point out that as far as I know, most of the laws regulating freedom of speech were coined after those examples, moreover: as a direct reaction to them. It's almost as if laws could be created and changed to adapt to the different challenges a society experiences in different times and circumstances? you can be certain that the fact that the post-war German peoples resorted suppression o' opinion to address some o' the evils o' the wartime german government is not lost on Gromnir. HA! Good Fun! ps for rostere, and not thinking you is using "ironic" correct. is hardly ironic that a jewish group, american or otherwise, would be offended by nazi propaganda. is almost the complete opposite o' irony and the very reason we got a First Amendment? is not ironic at all that an offended group would be angered and overzealous. the irony, that you missed, is that your jewish americans (cite please) were apparently successful in much of europe but not in America. also, no. hate speech laws is not same as defamation and assault. there is no need for hate speech laws where they overlap with common law crimes. use defamation if it is defamation. duh.

On one hand, I can empathize with that. On the other hand, if by "orwellian dystopia", we mean "basically Finland or Germany", I have to say, I'd rather live in an orwellian dystopia than in the USA. are you sure you wanna use Germany as an example? am thinking gd gots some pretty compelling reasons to fear German examples o' suppression o' opinion. *shrugs* european nations is far more homogenous than the US-- different problems. the US would benefit, in many ways, from having a population that were approaching the ethnic and cultural homogeneity o' germany or finland, but that ain't possible... not w/o a nightmarish and orwellian dystopia. conversely, a major issue facing the candidates this election is the rather extreme wealth inequality in the US. the disappearing middle class, unlike nazis in skokie, is a real problem. would be nice if Justices, legislators and executives would leave the freaking Bill of Rights alone, and fix some real problems. leave the blues brothers to handle first amendment quandaries? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU HA! Good Fun! ps Gromnir would not prefer to live in Germany. we spent a fair amount o' time living in europe, and it were a kinda eye-opener. racism and bigotry gets much press here in the US, but am gonna assure you that we never were allowed to forget that we is a minority while living/teaching in europe.

as regulars o' this board is aware, Gromnir is a bit o' a free speech crusader. am always surprised by how different europeans view free speech than does Americans. seems axiomatic to us that the only speech that actual needs protection is that speech which offends. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419 is a bit over-simple. *shrug* regardless, it doesn't matter if you believe that hate speech should be prohibited. the fact is that hate speech that does not rise to the level o' chaplinsky fighting words (google it) is protected by the First Amendment. as such, US lawmakers, even with best of intentions, cannot abridge such speech without changing the First Amendment. ... even so, am very disappointed in many o' our fellow Americans. just because some yutz has the right to spew hate does not mean that citizens should stay silent and allow the bigots to spew his poison unopposed. for Gromnir, the right to free speech is accompanied by a duty not only to defend the offensive speaker's right to express himself but also to respond and educate. "those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." - J Brandeis (whitney v. ca) believe that the US takes free speech too far? okie dokie. we disagree, but that don't change the fact US free speech is different from most al o' europe and the only way to change such freedom is to change the Constitution. am always surprised that legislators, executives and judges need be reminded o' that fact. oh, and once again, the only speech that requires Constitutional protection is speech which tends to offend. nowadays most o' us is justifiably offended by nazis in skokie and racists in st. paul, but in the 1930s and 40s, the naacp and communists woulda' been viewed as similarly offensive by many/most Americans. the Founders were wise enough to realize that the government gots no business deciding the worth o' the content o' the speaker's message. "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." J Harlan HA! Good Fun!

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias? let's not go all argumentum ad absurdum, eh? HA! Good Fun!

we knew our sense o' deja vu were weren't just the result o' that recent concussion we suffered. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/81056-agiels-all-things-military/?p=1722200 even so, is still funny. HA! Good Fun!

just as an aside, we don't actual believe that biden were more responsible for the borkings than dozens o' others... though am suspecting that Clarence Thomas might disagree. the media were also more than a bit complicit in the systemic scurrility directed at bork. regardless, such stuff needs examination with benefit o' objective hindsight. HA! Good Fun!

biden? am suspecting that many in the democratic party is gonna wanna hide biden away someplace dark and quiet until after a new Justice has been appointed. the infamous Biden Report, and the resulting Borking, is largely forgotten by most Americans. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124294934268945409 given the almost unique juxtaposition o' personages and events being made once again relevant by Scalia's death and empty seat, am gonna be surprised if we do not hear Bork mentioned frequent in the coming months... and biden's role in the borking is deserving o' attention. HA! Good Fun!

"Thanks for the musings. I was curious since the media has made such a hoopla about his comments in various cases (like throwing pot-shots to congress being too incompetent to even create any new laws) so i wondered about his competence as a justice of the supreme court from non-lay man's point of view." competence o' Scalia has been questioned by few folks who know law. *chuckle* 'but as the failed attempt to get judge bork confirmed revealed to Gromnir's generation, competence has not been the determinative factor when it comes to judging the Justices. even amongst lawyers, it is common to label a Justice as conservative or liberal in spite o' the fact that many o' the Justices is largely apolitical creatures. is few humble Justices. the Justices is certain o' their own intellectual greatness and they have lifetime tenures. Justices such as Scalia tend to follow their legal philosophies w/o much concern for liberal v. conservative. as a (con)texualist, Scalia were frequent viewed as being conservative by the media, which is understandable. review old laws and then suggest that the meaning o' those laws has not changed since the time that the privileged white men wrote those laws? (warning: am oversimplifying more than a little.) sounds a bit conservative, no? see flaws in legal reasoning o' roe v. wade. question the legal basis for affirmative action. support arizona immigration laws. etc. given Scalia's LEGAL philosophy, it were no surprise that he criticized roe v. wade, but doing so is deemed as misogynist or worse by more than a few political commentators. also, we would suggest that Scalia's (and all fed judges and Justices for that matter) were disappointed with the manner in which legislatures draft those laws which would inevitable come up for judicial review. btw, am intentional using inevitable. Scalia were much more vocal 'bout his disappointment with legislative draftings than others on the Court, but this is more enoch's area, so perhaps he can lend insights. is all too common that laws is passed by legislative bodies that is fully aware that that the law will need be... fixed. legislatures pass incomplete or broken laws cognizant o' the fact that executive and judiciary is gonna need work out the details necessary to make the law work in practice. Justices and judges is 'posed to interpret the laws. at what point does Justices and judges exceed their Constitutional authority when they attempt to save incomplete and broken laws? Scalia were offended by Congressional reliance on Judicial activism to save bad laws. Scalia were competent and consistent. is not a particularly sexy epitaph, but ain't that what we should expect from a Justice? we respected and admired Scalia even when we disagreed with him. as an aside, J. Rehnquist were always our prime example o' a dangerous Justice. no Justice active during our lifetime has received as much Gromnir vitriol as did Rehnquist. Scalia and Rehnquist were both "conservative" Justices and frequent they voted the same. even so, they occupied diametric opposed positions on our personal scale o' Justice approval. HA! Good Fun!

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law. is there a case you is most interested in discussing? Scalia had a Long career and he authored many controversial opinions... though please keep in mind that while Scalia were peerless in areas o' antitrust n' such, Gromnir has no ear for such stuff. regardless o' whether you liked Scalia or hated him, he were doggedly consistent (with a couple notable and disappointing exceptions) and he were the most entertaining writer on the Court. (edit: we will insert some o' our favorite Scaliaisms from the cases noted) The purpose of Indiana’s nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. barnes v. glen theatre inc Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules. r.a.v. v. city of st. paul Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. ... The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs 'no more than helpful signposts.' Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him. lamb's chapel v. center moriches union free school district is not necessarily the most influential cases, but search for scalia quotes from the above and you will gets some o' the best Justice zingers o' all-time. HA! Good Fun! ps is no coincidence we chose all First Amendment. Scalia has other great stuff, but... *shrug*

repeated advice: is only one example o' val misapprehensions 'bout the Constitution displayed on these boards. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763 do not accept anything val says 'bout law in the US. is possible that he has actual read the Constitution, but am absolute certain that he doesn't understand what he thinks he read. am more shocked when he manages to mistake his way into being correct. HA! Good Fun!