First of all, I don't want to say that what this perticular club does is right. What I do want to say is that if the government gets away with this, that this is just the start of things to come. This could be a high profile first admendment case.
First of all, I don't want to say that what this perticular club does is right. What I do want to say is that if the government gets away with this, that this is just the start of things to come. This could be a high profile first admendment case.
I think that the fact that the "club" is actually organized crime/ biker gang is the only reason for the injunction. If the club was an affilate of the shriners then I would say that the government would have over steped its boundaries.
It is gang affilated and gangs are illegal.
First of all, I don't want to say that what this perticular club does is right. What I do want to say is that if the government gets away with this, that this is just the start of things to come. This could be a high profile first admendment case.
I think that the fact that the "club" is actually organized crime/ biker gang is the only reason for the injunction. If the club was an affilate of the shriners then I would say that the government would have over steped its boundaries.
It is gang affilated and gangs are illegal.
The government has never proved that any motorcycle club is a gang. RICO has never stuck on any motorcycle club since the day the government established RICO. Are we saying that if your in a "gang" that you don't have the freedom of speech? Just playing the devils advocate here. Lets look past who these guys are and focus on what the U.S. attorney's office is trying to do here.
First of all, I don't want to say that what this perticular club does is right. What I do want to say is that if the government gets away with this, that this is just the start of things to come. This could be a high profile first admendment case.
I think that the fact that the "club" is actually organized crime/ biker gang is the only reason for the injunction. If the club was an affilate of the shriners then I would say that the government would have over steped its boundaries.
It is gang affilated and gangs are illegal.
The government has never proved that any motorcycle club is a gang. RICO has never stuck on any motorcycle club since the day the government established RICO. Are we saying that if your in a "gang" that you don't have the freedom of speech? Just playing the devils advocate here. Lets look past who these guys are and focus on what the U.S. attorney's office is trying to do here.
Well the article clearly refers to them as gang members, and points out that they ride motorcycles. So I would concur that they are a motorcycle gang. Maybe a "non-law abiding, violent motorcycle enthuist club" would be more a better description.
and I agree that if you are in a member or affilate of a convicted organized crime group; then I personally do not have a problem with the government not allowing them to not advertise that.
You defend the rights of these thugs and refer to me as the devils advocate.
If it was a peaceful law abiding organization then yes I would say that attorneys generals office over steped the 1st admenment. I think that the attorney generals office is just doing its job and protecting americans citizens from a band of thugs.
Well the article clearly refers to them as gang members, and points out that they ride motorcycles. So I would concur that they are a motorcycle gang. Maybe a "non-law abiding, violent motorcycle enthuist club" would be more a better description.
and I agree that if you are in a member or affilate of a convicted organized crime group; then I personally do not have a problem with the government not allowing them to not advertise that.
You defend the rights of these thugs and refer to me as the devils advocate.
If it was a peaceful law abiding organization then yes I would say that attorneys generals office over steped the 1st admenment. I think that the attorney generals office is just doing its job and protecting americans citizens from a band of thugs.
Easy there Shamlin! I never defended these guys. My opening statement was that I did not condone what this club did. This was a thread started about first admendment rights not about a motorcycle gang. So what your saying is that the government has the right to chose when to allow freedom of speech and when not to?
I'd almost be willing to suspend the 4th, 5th, and 8th against these scumbags as well. Sounds to me like you oughta be able to take em all out into a field and give em each one behind the ear...
Quote:
Sixty-four Mongol members have been arrested in six states under an indictment released Tuesday.
The indictment describes a tightly organized group, which is mostly Latino, that routinely engages in murder, torture, drug trafficking and other offenses.
Easy there Shamlin! I never defended these guys. My opening statement was that I did not condone what this club did. This was a thread started about first admendment rights not about a motorcycle gang. So what your saying is that the government has the right to chose when to allow freedom of speech and when not to?
Sure..... in this case it is justified.
What if Al Queda had such a patch that all there members wore would you have a problem with it then.
Are you scared that today they arrest gang bangers for advertising their criminal enterprises, andtomorrow they will be arresting folks for talking bad about the government on TV ?
What if Al Queda had such a patch that all there members wore would you have a problem with it then.
They are not U.S. citizens. You are comparing apples to oranges here.
Quote:
Are you scared that today they arrest gang bangers for advertising their criminal enterprises, andtomorrow they will be arresting folks for talking bad about the government on TV ?
What I'm saying is if the government suspends first admendment rights to one group of people where will it go from there?
1st admendment in jepordy!
