Nope. Wrote it quick and dirty-like. Unfortunately slashdot hasn't discovered "edit" yet.

Perhaps this type of conduct is expected out of someplace like BYU. If so then I think that is kind of sad.... I disagree though that there aren't currently egregious violations of free-speech at BYU. I brought up that if an LDS student converts to any other religion they will be kicked out of school and their transcripts will be locked so they can't transfer to another university either (because the school views converting from LDS faith to another faith as an honor code violation and they lock transcripts for honor code violations). The student would also be kicked out of their housing if this occurred. How is this not an egregious suppression of speech?

True. So are many of the universities that did make it onto the list.

Full-disclosure: I attended BYU and actually really enjoyed my time there. Brigham Young University should be on that list. Student's will be expelled (and their transcripts locked so they can't transfer credits either) if they convert from Mormonism to any other religion while a student. You can literally get academically disciplined for profanity or criticizing LDS leaders. It isn't just student's though. Faculty can also get in serious trouble for what they say. For example, a BYU professor and historian (Michael Quinn) was strongly pressured to leave after he published honest histories of the LDS church's history with polygamy. He had been an excellent professor as evidenced by the fact that one of his years at BYU the graduating class voted him the best professor on campus. BYU is absolutely not a place where you can talk about the LDS church honestly and openly without getting kicked out (at least if you want to talk about large parts of history that the church tries to bury).

What is the MPAA enforcing and how is it enforcing it? If the MPAA didn't have friendly laws passed by the government what would it be able to do?

Even if the CDC "cleared" her for travel she should of known better being a medical professional. She knew there was a chance she had ebola and was contagious and she choose to travel. The CDC didn't force her on that plane. Just because a government agency tells you something is "ok" doesn't mean you can turn your brain off and a absolved from all consequences of your actions.

I found this a year or two ago. Very funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm not sure why my statement would baffle you. I never claimed that things were great in Somalia; I only claimed that Somalia is the result government failure. I'm not an anarchist, but I am familiar the standard anarchist response to your statement. It goes something like this.... No one ever claimed that the mere absence of a government is sufficient for bliss. The claim is that adding an institution of organized theft and violence will make anywhere worse. Also, in regards to Somalia in particular, in the time since the government of Somalia has collapsed: (1) life expectancy has gone up, (2) death rates have gone down, (3) GDP has nearly tripled, (4) infant mortality is lower, (5) a larger percentage of the population has access to water, and (6) more adults are literate. It seems like by many measures Somalia has done better without a government than they did with a government.

Somalia once had a strong (and oppressive) central government. It collapsed. Somalia is an example of what happens when strong, oppressive central governments collapse. Telling people who want less government to go to a Somalia may seem pithy, but it really just shows ignorance of history.

I'd be interested in knowing if you have any references at all to support that claim. I'd prefer something written during that time period that says something to the effect of, "Dang it, those clever Federalists tricked us with that comma! Curse you, comma!"

Ack! The country is a trap! We are all going to be melted!

I agree with you that that The State had no reason to take the child, but be careful. The State views those that use violence against it as the most vile criminals and would not hesitate to have you thrown in prison. If you are in prison how can you help your child?

What you say could be 100% true and the ACA could still be unconstitutional. What you are doing here is attacking the person (an imaginary person) rather than attacking the argument. If you want to argue that it is constitutional your best bet would be to go to the constitution and find the parts that you think would allow for this legislation. For help you could read what the supreme court justices said about the legislation.

For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.

Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.