people going door to door uninvited should be required to get a licence and sercurity check if they are going door to door and required to show it on demand while engaged in the door to door work.. after all it is a perfect stranger for the most part who could be an imposter or maybe even a violent criminal or rapist.
no one convicted of sexual molestation or violent crimes should be given a permit.
an added benifit would be less people knocking on your door trying to sell you something be it a vaacum cleaner or armegeddon life insurance protection.. what is your opinon?.
As it stands today, anything that appears to be limiting free speech or practice of religion is going to be fought and probably shot down.
Well, I'm not positive that what I suggested would hold up, but it certainly would stand a better chance than the zero chance of making people get licenses to go door-to-door. Restrictions of rights incident to criminal convictions tend to stand up a lot better than those targeted at the general population.
people going door to door uninvited should be required to get a licence and sercurity check if they are going door to door and required to show it on demand while engaged in the door to door work.. after all it is a perfect stranger for the most part who could be an imposter or maybe even a violent criminal or rapist.
no one convicted of sexual molestation or violent crimes should be given a permit.
an added benifit would be less people knocking on your door trying to sell you something be it a vaacum cleaner or armegeddon life insurance protection.. what is your opinon?.
You have to get a permit to drive, permit to build something on your property
Yes, but at least in the U.S., speech is protected in the constitution, and driving and building a deck are not. It would be considered a prior restraint on speech, which is almost never allowed. Why not just impose a lifetime ban on door-to-door cavassing upon those convicted of sexual assault? Wouldn't that have the desired effect without making every innocent person get a license?
jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
What do you think about this case? Might it go all the way to the Supreme court?
I haven't had time to read the recently filed Conti brief yet, but if you mean the U.S. Supreme Court, I think there is virtually no chance the Supreme Court hears this case. The key issues in this case are questions of state tort law, which the U.S. Supreme Court does not review. Even if there were an important federal consitutional question at stake, the chances of any state court case making it to the Supreme Court are incredibly small.
I think there is a good chance that the California Supreme Court hears the case, however - especially if Conti wins at the appellate level.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307058,00.html.
the father of a fallen marine was awarded nearly $11 million wednesday in damages by a jury that found leaders of a fundamentalist church had invaded the family's privacy and inflicted emotional distress when they picketed the marine's funeral.. .
the jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages.
The news story you linked to is from 2007. This verdict has already been overturned. The Supreme Court in 2011 ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to picket under the constitution. The case is Snyder v. Phelps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html
jw leaks has published the respondent's brief prepared by rick simons in the case: candace conti v. watchtower bible and tract society of new york & fremont congregation of jehovah's witnesses.
(90 pages).
http://jwleaks.org/candace-conti/.
Thanks for posting, JWleaks!
So what happens on 1st July?
July 1st is the date the WTS reply brief is due. It's a shorter brief where they are able to respond to the arguments in this latest brief. Then it will be fully briefed, and an oral argument date will be set.
washington -- a narrowly divided supreme court ruled monday that police can collect dna from people arrested but not yet convicted of serious crimes, a tool that more than half the states already use to help crack unsolved crimes.. this dna sample will of course go into a huge database similar to fingerprints.. .
I don't see how swabbing someone's mouth is much different than a fingerprint. It's an investigative technique - it would be silly to need to convict someone first to take their DNA. The whole point of the DNA evidnce is to identify criminals and to convict. If there is sufficient legal grounds to arrest someone, I don't have a problem with it. I think being able to find out if someone who is arrested for a minor crime might be responsible for unsolved more serious ones is a greater concern than avoiding state databases.
there was a convicted murderer that became jw in my old congregation.
actually he committed manslaughter, he killed another guy in a bar fight.
i think he served 15 years in prison.
This guy is (or at least probably still is) a witness.
has the jehovah's witness computer data base number totaling 23,720 child molesters on file in patterson, new york created a public nuisance by keeping the names secret ?.
that question, is basically before the court,regarding roman catholics.. .
in the first lawsuit under a new minnesota law that allows victims of child sexual abuse to bring claims decades later, accuses the archdiocese of saint paul and minneapolis and the diocese of winona of negligence for allowing a known pedophile to continue working with children for years.. the plaintiff, identified as "doe 1," seeks a court order to force the church to release an internal list of "credibly accused child molesting priests," and accuses the church of creating a public nuisance by keeping the names secret.. .
Well, even if there is credible information that they have such a list with that number of names, if the list only includes those who have been accused at some point or another, they would probably be liable to a bunch of people for defamation if they published the list.
.
.
unless an extension is requested..
I believe it means that they didn't file their opposition brief timely, and they get 15 days to cure - just like the WTS did in March.
please, can anyone help update with this google search?
it could be a legal issue that might have escaped our attention.. .
[pdf]appellant's opening brief - public citizenwww.citizen.org/documents/hadeed-carpet-cleaning-v-doe-appellant-... may 7, 2013 watchtower bible & tract society v. ... www.fhdlaw.com/html/corporate_reputation.
Scott, in the appeals brief you linked to, the party cites Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002). It's a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case about door-to-door preaching and the First Amendment. I'm sure you've read about it at some point. It even has its own Wikipedia page.
