|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Judge Rules Anonymous Teens Can’t Take Part in NRA Suit Over Florida Law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“One need only look to the harassment suffered by some of the Parkland shooting survivors to appreciate the vitriol that has infected public discourse about the Second Amendment,” the judge wrote. “And this court has no doubt that the harassment goes both ways.”
Walker suggested the law should perhaps be changed to let people join litigation under pseudonyms, given the “barrage of hate” that can now easily be spread on social media and the 24-hour news cycle when someone is publicly associated with a controversial lawsuit. But for now the judge said his hands are tied because the case doesn’t involve matters of “utmost intimacy.”
The judge ordered the NRA to file an amended complaint without pseudonyms by May 21. |
Comment by:
mickey
(5/17/2018)
|
“One need only look to the harassment suffered by some of the Parkland shooting survivors..."
Harassment? You mean publicly disagreeing with those determined to make public figures of themselves?
Biased much, Your Honor? |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|