Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#25,676
#25,676
05_never_again said:
Because the concept behind it still stands. Your right to free speech is subject to limits. You have freedom of speech but can't slander someone, blackmail someone, say something false to intentionally incite a panic, etc. The church has the right to assemble, but not in a way that endangers public safety. There's no freedom of religion angle either, because the shutdown doesn't apply to churches only.

For what it's worth, I don't think the pastor should be arrested, but there are much better cases for you to select from if you want a "the government is trampling on our rights" story.
Click to expand...

Did the pastor do any of these things?
 
#25,678
#25,678
hog88 said:
As I said, you can't use your rights to hurt others. That's the only limits on them.

Or that is they way it should be.



Don't take this personally but I see a lot of Luther in this post.
Click to expand...
You can very easily argue that church was doing that though. Even if it is unintentional or negligent, not intentional.
 
#25,679
#25,679
Pepe_Silvia said:
The pastor is not inciting unlawful action simply by holding church services. He and his congregants have a right to assemble and practice their religion. Did he say anything during his sermon that incited "unlawful action?"
Click to expand...
It’s a weak argument in my mind in an age where there are so many virtual options where religion can be practiced safely. If there was a tornado on the ground heading for the building, would the Pastor go to the pulpit and preach?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volatility and 05_never_again
#25,680
#25,680
05_never_again said:
I would assume the angle the cops would take is that in the current environment, the gathering endangered public safety.

This is another reason to start differentiating between low risk and high risk members of the population, IMO. Elderly people and people who aren't in good health really don't need to be out right now.
Click to expand...

People who are in the higher risk category should self-isolate but they should not be forced to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey, hog88 and allvol123
#25,681
#25,681
rjd970 said:
From that article, also from the SCOTUS:



Improper use of the saying is noted. However my point still stands. It’s a danger to the public at large to have that gathering, so the 1A can and should be weighed against that.
Click to expand...

Personal rights vs corporate rights aside, I take issue with the claim that holding the gathering is a danger to the public at large. If "the public at large" is afraid of the virus, then they need to hole up at home and self quarantine. If they do that, they won't come into contact with the people who exercise their right to freedom of association.

I really am beginning to believe this virus panic has been fueled as a dry run to see how many rights spineless Americans are willing to give away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and Pepe_Silvia
#25,682
#25,682
Australian Report: Wuhan Whistleblower Dr. Ai Fen Has ‘Disappeared’

Dr. Ai Fen, director of emergency management at Wuhan Central Hospital and one of the first doctors to blow the whistle on the coronavirus epidemic at a time when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was desperate to conceal it, has reportedly vanished.

GettyImages-1201428161-640x480.jpg


She began speaking out against the CCP two weeks ago, beginning with an interview that Chinese censors relentlessly suppressed.

Ai’s interview in early March was a courageous indictment of Communist Party leadership for concealing the epidemic, and especially for denying that the Wuhan virus could be transmitted between humans. She said doctors in Wuhan knew the virus could pass between humans weeks before the CCP admitted it to the world, and blamed herself for failing to speak out despite orders to keep quiet.

As with famous and now-deceased whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang, she was reprimanded for “spreading rumors” when she tried to warn other members of the Wuhan medical community about the emerging epidemic. Ai said Li’s death from the coronavirus was one reason she decided to speak out.

“If I could have known, I would have told everyone, even though I was warned. I have thought many times — if only time could be turned back,” she said. (The U.K. Guardian posted an even more aggressive translation of her remarks: “If I had known what was to happen, I would not have cared about the reprimand. I would have ******* talked about it to whoever, where ever I could”).

Of her early role in attempting to spread the word about the coronavirus, Ai said: “I am not a whistleblower. I am the one who provided the whistle.”

The CCP’s censorship machine went into overdrive stamping out Ai’s interview, hunting it down and deleting it as it spread through social media and forcing the paper that interviewed Ai to effectively pretend the interview never happened.

Australian media noted over the weekend that Ai has “disappeared,” as 60 Minutes Australia put it.

“As China now tries to rewrite history and claim it was transparent all along, a final nail in the coffin of their lie. Just two weeks ago, the head of emergency at Wuhan Central Hospital, Dr. Ai Fen, also went public saying authorities had stopped her and her colleagues from warning the world. She has now disappeared, whereabouts unknown,” the report said.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey and Orange_Vol1321
#25,683
#25,683
Pepe_Silvia said:
The pastor is not inciting unlawful action simply by holding church services. He and his congregants have a right to assemble and practice their religion. Did he say anything during his sermon that incited "unlawful action?"
Click to expand...

No, but the right to assembly is covered under 1A. If that assembly poses a threat to the public at large then there is precedent, IMO.

Look, I think this virus crap is mostly sensationalism. However, if we are to believe large gatherings pose a public health risk, then this is dangerous. The church isn’t being targeted, all public gatherings fall under this same purview.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#25,684
#25,684
Pepe_Silvia said:
Did the pastor do any of these things?
Click to expand...
No, but he arguably put the public (and definitely members of his own congregation) at risk by having the assembly. Hence, the right to assemble being subject to limits. Just like Antifa doesn't have the right to mass and shut down a busy intersection.

The difference between the pastor is that he is unintentionally or negligently putting people at risk, while Antifa is intentionally infringing on the rights of others, but the outcome is still the same.
 
#25,685
#25,685
GAVol said:
It’s a weak argument in my mind in an age where there are so many virtual options where religion can be practiced safely. If there was a tornado on the ground heading for the building, would the Pastor go to the pulpit and preach?
Click to expand...

Everybody at the church service was a willing participant. I'm not a believer in a "living constitution" so I dont find the existence of modern technology to be relevant at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#25,686
#25,686
rjd970 said:
No, but the right to assembly is covered under 1A. If that assembly poses a threat to the public at large then there is precedent, IMO.

Look, I think this virus crap is mostly sensationalism. However, if we are to believe large gatherings pose a public health risk, then this is dangerous. The church isn’t being targeted, all public gatherings fall under this same purview.
Click to expand...

Hell, a trip to Kroger is a large public gathering now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
#25,690
#25,690
GAVol said:
It’s a weak argument in my mind in an age where there are so many virtual options where religion can be practiced safely. If there was a tornado on the ground heading for the building, would the Pastor go to the pulpit and preach?
Click to expand...
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people who I know or who I can tell likely agree with me politically use bad examples to make their point. This is one of those times.
 
#25,691
#25,691
Orange_Crush said:
Personal rights vs corporate rights aside, I take issue with the claim that holding the gathering is a danger to the public at large. If "the public at large" is afraid of the virus, then they need to hole up at home and self quarantine. If they do that, they won't come into contact with the people who exercise their right to freedom of association.

I really am beginning to believe this virus panic has been fueled as a dry run to see how many rights spineless Americans are willing to give away.
Click to expand...

I’m not arguing the basis of what you are saying. I’ve said all along the quarantine should be targeted and not blanket, if anything at all. Perhaps I mistook what was being said, but I was arguing the notion that somehow the church was being targeted. From all accounts, it just looks like this pastor was the only one stupid enough to hold his service in person. Most others I’ve seen have gone to a TV or live streaming model.
 
#25,692
#25,692
GAVol said:
It’s a weak argument in my mind in an age where there are so many virtual options where religion can be practiced safely. If there was a tornado on the ground heading for the building, would the Pastor go to the pulpit and preach?
Click to expand...

if he did he's an idiot right along with everyone that kept their seats
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
#25,693
#25,693
rjd970 said:
No, but the right to assembly is covered under 1A. If that assembly poses a threat to the public at large then there is precedent, IMO.

Look, I think this virus crap is mostly sensationalism. However, if we are to believe large gatherings pose a public health risk, then this is dangerous. The church isn’t being targeted, all public gatherings fall under this same purview.
Click to expand...

Everybody's rights are being equally trampled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#25,694
#25,694
hog88 said:
They didn't force anyone to come.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think you're intentionally missing the point at this point.

Whether or not people were forced to come to the service is totally irrelevant as to the issue of whether or not the service endangered public safety.
 
#25,698
#25,698
Pepe_Silvia said:
Everybody's rights are being equally trampled.
Click to expand...
So you believe that the government cannot restrict freedom of assembly in any way whatsoever?

Let me put this in a way you might appreciate more - Antifa goons could shut down I-75/40 right through downtown Knoxville, and police couldn't legally do anything about it?
 
#25,700
#25,700
05_never_again said:
I'm starting to think you're intentionally missing the point at this point.

Whether or not people were forced to come to the service is totally irrelevant as to the issue of whether or not the service endangered public safety.
Click to expand...

If you want to go down that road ok. Opening the doors and holding the service endangered no one. The people that willingly attended the service are the ones that put others in danger so why aren't the paddy wagons rolling to pick them up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top