http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Things that were illegal didn't suddenly become legal just because they weren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

No, but unless they fell under the Constitutional powers of the feds, they remained state crimes, not federal ones.

OTOH, some things that were illegal in the states did suddenly become legal when the 14th Amendment was passed. Any laws restricting free speech, religious liberty, etc., as well as any provisions creating unequal protection, were null and void from that point on.

Of course, the state often operates under unconstitutional, null and void laws anyway, as much as it can get away with. Jim Crow was illegal, marriage inequality is illegal, much of the War on Drugs and the War on Guns and the War on Copying is illegal, but they've got the guns.

That statement is not consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Correct. The point is that SCOTUS jurisprudence often has fsck-all to do with the Constitution.

For example, the first amendment has been held *not* to give you the right to incite violence. (See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.)

A perfect example. Chaplinsky was engaging in exactly the sort of political speech that most requires protection and was in no way inciting violence. He called somebody a nasty name, that's all. The Court's absurd and immoral decision had neither law (i.e., the text of the Constitution) nor reason on its side.

OP here, way too late to matter, but still. It was poorly phrased. I missed the comma between high and six-figure. Where I come from, *any* 6-figure income would be considered high...

Simon.

I'm one of said H1B visas, now with a green card. Been here almost exactly 10 years now, after Apple bought my company. I came here for the money and the weather, not for anything else. Frankly I don't think the US society is as "free" as people here seem to believe.

I've mentioned this here before, and (understandably, no-one likes bad news) I tend to get down voted for it, but the simple honest truth of the matter is that the USA isn't geared for looking after people, it's geared towards controlling people. There's things I like about it (the job is great, the weather is excellent, the people (as individuals who I meet day-to-day) are generally wonderful unless driving, the money is still good, I like my house and I met my wife here - my son is dual American/British).

There's things I don't like too, (the militarisation of the police, the lack of any reasonable healthcare, the "I'm alright Jack, screw you" attitude of a *lot* of people - weirdly enough those who often really *aren't* alright, the schooling system, and for lack of any better term, the country's soul). As time passes, and I get older, these seem to be more important. I can't see myself retiring here, and in fact I can't see myself here in another 10 years. That's not the attitude I came to the US with, it's something I've developed while I've been here.

Let's be frank here, I'm not trying to boast, but I'm one of the 'have's - I have a million dollar house (which sounds a lot more impressive than it really is in this neighbourhood) which is almost paid off, I have a high six-figure income, and I've money in the bank. I'm not a "1%er" but I'm up there with the rest... however, even with all of this, I'm not happy with the way the country is going. There's little-to-no safety net for joe public, and seemingly (*both* houses Republican, seriously ?) no desire for that. I think the USA is far closer to oligarchy than democracy, and the long-term trend just looks like it gets worse from here on out.

[sigh]

Simon.

Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention)

There is no such thing as private property without government intervention. "Property" in any sense more than what a nomadic human could carry with them, is a government creation. To "own" something means exactly and only to be able to call on government force to obtain or maintain control of that thing, or to be free from the usual government sanctions for such use of force. Land ownership is rooted in government-issues pieces of paper. Every physical good ultimately comes out of the land. So-called "intellectual property" is entirely made up by the state.

Property is not a right, it is a human invention that at best we can use protect rights -- or at worst can use to protect the power of a ruling class. Capitalism is a system where the state the notion of uses property to preserve the power of a small artistocatic owning class.

Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms.

And capitalism reduces individual freedoms, and is thus immoral. QED.

So how should a web site provide a good reading experience the majority, who apparently are "so fucking retarded as to maximize [their] browser window" even on a 1920px-wide screen?

Gee, if only there were a way to suggest (but not mandate) that the browser render a piece of text in a certain manner. A "style", if you will. The specification of such a "style" might include a maximum width. Well, I guess no such thing could ever exist, so in order to format that text the server will need to send a whole pile of executable code.

I am willing to bet that there is some non-free-market shenanigan going on here.

If the price of cocoa was exploding, then people would plant them...When reality does not follow the course your ideology says it should, sometimes it's not the result of fraud. Sometimes it means your ideology is bunk.

Otherwise as cocoa goes missing the producer would get better price, and more people would plant them..

Saith TFA, "The problem is, for one, a supply issue. Dry weather in West Africa (specifically in the Ivory Coast and Ghana, where more than 70 percent of the world's cocoa is produced) has greatly decreased production in the region. A nasty fungal disease known as frosty pod hasn't helped either. The International Cocoa Organization estimates it has wiped out between 30 percent and 40 percent of global coca production. Because of all this, cocoa farming has proven a particularly tough business, and many farmers have shifted to more profitable crops, like corn, as a result....For these reasons, cocoa prices have climbed by more than 60 percent since 2012, when people started eating more chocolate than the world could produce."

This [Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate Bar] is the one to avoid.

Yes, please avoid that dark chocolate. More for those of us with refined taste buds who like the taste of chocolate above the taste of sugar.

One, it's amazing the things some people would rather have than money.

Money is pretty useless. You can't eat it or shelter yourself from rain with it. I'd rather have almost anything than money. The relevant question is, between two things (including potential future things) I can have rather than money, which do I prefer?

Sure you can. "Officer, those aren't my drugs". Ever heard of someone being prosecuted for saying this?

Saith the wik, "Making false statements (18 U.S.C. Â 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.[1] A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,[2] Rod Blagojevich,[3] Scooter Libby,[4] Bernard Madoff,[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.[6]"

I've got one or two of those TutorText books tucked away from my dad's collection when he was studying programming ("data processing", as they called it back then) in the late 60s.

The right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats? Are you sure?

Yes. American law is clear that the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, provided that those death threats are political speech and not "true threats" that explicitly call for or promise imminent lawless action. Rape threats are not as bad as death threats. (If you believe that rape is a fate worse than death, that rape survivors would be better off dead, please go shoot yourself in the head.) So if the right to make death threats is more important than the right to not receive death threats, clearly the right to make rape threats is more important than the right to not receive rape threats.

Is it socially acceptable to make death threats or rape threats? No. If you see people doing it, tell them they're being assholes and to cut it out. Mod them down. Ban them from your forum. Don't invite them to the party. But it's a big jump from there to have the state point guns at some immature asshole punk who blows his top in a flamewar and says "I'm gonna rape you to death!"

Threatening to rape or kill someone isn't "being offensive" it's fucking illegal, you worthless clown.

Hyperbolic speech that includes vague threats of death is not illegal. One must cross the line to be a "true threat" before First Amendment protections no longer apply.

Just wait, there will be a flood of posts claiming that threads made over the internet, even if they contain your home address, are not "serious" and should be ignored.

How does including someone's home address make a threat more or less serious? Perhaps you are young and do not recall that not that long ago, Americans had delivered to the home annually a book that listed the addresses of most citizens of their city or town. Unless one takes extraordinary steps to hide, one's address is not private information.

My address has been on my resume on my website since the 1990s. Some random asshole posting "I'm going to kill that Tom Swiss for what he said on Slashdot!" wouldn't worry me any more or any less than some random asshole posting "I'm going to kill that Tom Swiss, who lives at 2119 Arlonne Drive in Catonsville, MD, 21228, for what he said on Slashdot!"

So how worried should I be over some random asshole posting a threat? Seems to me that the ratio of "I'm going to kill you!" posts to actual assaults is so low that I shouldn't worry. Over a quarter-century of flamewars (I was active on FidoNet BBSes starting around 1988) a few people have posted that they were going to kick my ass, none have ever showed up to do so.

If anyone is going to object "But you're a man, not a woman!", you need to keep in mind that as a man I am more likely, not less, to be a victim of violence.