Your comment is excellent. Those in power (usually liberals) that pass these kinds of laws simply have the exact opposite mindset from freedom. Whether it be gun control, seat belts or cell phones or any other aspect of your life, if you haven't hurt anyone, there is no reason for the government to step in. There are plenty of laws on the books in all 50 states about murder and assault but governments feel the need to tack on controls over gun ownership. There are plenty of laws on the books about manslaughter yet governments feel the need to go after drivers who simply spoke to someone on the phone even if they didn't cause a fatal crash. Those in government want to control every aspect of our lives thus continual passing of laws that restrict people's freedom all in the name of safety, security, etc.

Delta could still be held liable (lawsuit for example) for not letting the guy and his wife on the place since they purchased tickets. If the TSA were the ones who escorted him off the plane, you might have a place to say that the TSA had no authority to do so as it would then be a 1st amendment violation as TSA is part of the federal government. If company representatives escorted him off, then 1st amendment certainly would not apply.

Using the phrase 'Environmentally Friendly' is how you get liberals to use (or at the very least not blacklist) your product whether it has anything to do with actually being helpful to the environment or not.

Giving people an option to take their money out of Social Security is the right thing to do. Getting rid of socialism in the government can only improve government and the economy. Freedom will win out every time. If one could wave a magic wand and get rid of the incumberance of medical insurance, we'd immediately see a drastic reduction in medical expenses. In a truly free economy w/o insurance to prop it up, the medical industry would have to drastically reduce costs as no one can pay what they charge now.

The answer is not more insurance, that makes the problem worse. The answer is to get the 800lb government gorilla off of our collective chests and let us be free.

If you are going to have the gall to violate my right to bear arms, please pass an amendment striking down the 2nd amendment from the bill of rights. At least then it would be legal. Until then the government is legally restricted from taking away anyone's guns (not that they don't violate the constitution on a daily basis and do it anyway)

and you ignored the warning. Those of us who were not in the liberal democratic camp (libertarians, conservatives, etc) warned that this man was exceedingly dangerous to elect as president and that many many freedoms would be lost despite his promises to the contrary and you all voted for him anyway. You are reaping what you sowed. This country has lapsed into a dictatorship.

1st sale doctrine was decided in the US decades ago...very explicitly. The current courts just choose to ignore it like most of the rest of the constitution

Wrong. Liberty is not a 2 way street. Liberty is about freedom from government...one direction. The US Constitution (your country's laws will vary) was written to limit government to the powers stated within. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in the constitution that allows government to limit the liberty of the individual without cause and due process. Conversely, an individual police officer *is* a free citizen as well as a law-enforcement agent. If said officer is charged with a crime (in this case using more force than is allowed for the situation, etc), then they have the right to defend themselves in court as would any other citizen.

Oh I don't know...some dudes named Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Pulitzer might have a thing or two to say about that whole forgotten business man thing.

Outlawing a product that is in high demand will simply drive up the price and put it on the black market. See Prohibition Era. It didn't work then (it led to a massive spike in violent crime that disappeared virtually overnight when the ban was overturned) and it won't work now. What the ban on alcohol did not do was reduce alcohol consumption. It just drove people who consumed underground and into doing it illegally. It's not the government's job to tell free citizens what they can and can't put into their body. They can educate. They can advise. They can tax. But they have no right nor power granted in the constitution to force free citizens *not* to consume something. This country is so twisted around and has forgotten what made it great...Freedom. Pure and Simple.

Yeah..but it would be utterly polarizing... ;-P

The constitution doesn't give you a choice. It clearly states that power not explicitly delegated to the federal government must be relegated to the states or the people. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

Do you realize how many every day objects you use that utterly rely on the oil industry? Most all plastics for starters...I'm not condoning illegal activity but be very careful when making broad statements condemning an entire industry.

Your statement is over-broad. In general, you might be correct but what if, for example, that teacher has kids that are best friends with a student in the school s/he teaches in? What if that teacher is something like a scout-master and interacts w/ students that way outside of school? What if they wish to use social media in those ways? Why would that be wrong all of a sudden? I could go on all day with examples...

The problem here is in defining a non-harmful action (in this case friending someone through social media) as criminal simply because it *might* lead to a harmful criminal action (inappropriate physical/sexual relationship). This entire line of thinking has handcuffed American society for decades and taken away freedoms constantly. The government should not interfere (at any level, fed, state or local) with citizens lives unless harm has been done to a citizen by another citizen (that harm can take many forms...financial, physical, sexual, etc).

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years. The Apostle Paul's letters on the subject date back to the first century and the Ten Commandments(Do not commit adultery) to before 1000 BC.