“Unlawful” Censorship In SC
We were in the midst of chasing down another lead when we stumbled upon a particularly troubling secYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
We were in the midst of chasing down another lead when we stumbled upon a particularly troubling secYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
42 comments
Hmmmmm —– I guess that means that Sic’s articles are “unlawful communications”, but I am specifically soliciting them – so there! Anyway, Sic, I’ve got your back!
—– and I guess this means no more photos of Mrs. Sic (mid-thigh skirt and 6 inch heels). Sigh………
Hmmmmm —– I guess that means that Sic’s articles are “unlawful communications”, but I am specifically soliciting them – so there! Anyway, Sic, I’ve got your back!
—– and I guess this means no more photos of Mrs. Sic (mid-thigh skirt and 6 inch heels). Sigh………
It looks to me that a Perv like FITS just wanted reason to write dirty words to perpetuate his creepy fantasies…
—– and here you are again, right at the head of the line…
There he goes, trashing his wife again. Who would ever want to advertise their business on this website? I’ll give him to July when he realizes the money he spent on the website redesign means nothing when the content is bovine sewage ramblings of a misogynist nincompoop. The GA is in session, and nothing to write about?
You want to talk about the site? How about the injustice or the infringement of personal liberty happening here? Can’t say I’m surprised, hypocrites like you just do what comes natural. What if this were about something like… let’s say some NRA bullshit, you’d be outraged “How dare the government tell me what to do!”. Yeah right! You and everybody like you are just plain phonies. You don’t want the “big bad government” telling you what you can and can’t say but it’s okay if it’s telling the other guy what he can and can’t say.
Typical.
It looks to me that a Perv like FITS just wanted reason to write dirty words to perpetuate his creepy fantasies…
—– and here you are again, right at the head of the line…
There he goes, trashing his wife again. Who would ever want to advertise their business on this website? I’ll give him to July when he realizes the money he spent on the website redesign means nothing when the content is bovine sewage ramblings of a misogynist nincompoop. The GA is in session, and nothing to write about?
You want to talk about the site? How about the injustice or the infringement of personal liberty happening here? Can’t say I’m surprised, hypocrites like you just do what comes natural. What if this were about something like… let’s say some NRA bullshit, you’d be outraged “How dare the government tell me what to do!”. Yeah right! You and everybody like you are just plain phonies. You don’t want the “big bad government” telling you what you can and can’t say but it’s okay if it’s telling the other guy what he can and can’t say.
Typical.
Could the Sanford-Chapur e-mails (perhaps even ones the blackmailer didn’t leak) not only have revealed adultery and adulterous intent but could also have been technically unlawful in SC!?! Sanford mentioned something obliquely about Chapur sharing tantalizing sexual details in their communications. Although Sanford was very savvy with description (two magnificent parts) so he must have been aware and was skirting the law. Maybe there has also been some sexting due to their great geographic distance at times. Very amusing.
Could the Sanford-Chapur e-mails (perhaps even ones the blackmailer didn’t leak) not only have revealed adultery and adulterous intent but could also have been technically unlawful in SC!?! Sanford mentioned something obliquely about Chapur sharing tantalizing sexual details in their communications. Although Sanford was very savvy with description (two magnificent parts) so he must have been aware and was skirting the law. Maybe there has also been some sexting due to their great geographic distance at times. Very amusing.
C’mon now…how many of these prosecutions have you seen or even heard about? That’s because they don’t happen. It is a poorly worded statute (it should have included language exempting consensual exchanges), but if the exchange is consensual and transmitted in an otherwise legal manner it is protected by the First Amendment and, voilà! No criminal offense has occurred…
C’mon now…how many of these prosecutions have you seen or even heard about? That’s because they don’t happen. It is a poorly worded statute (it should have included language exempting consensual exchanges), but if the exchange is consensual and transmitted in an otherwise legal manner it is protected by the First Amendment and, voilà! No criminal offense has occurred…
Nothing to fear…. This is an evolution of the code for “Unlawful Use of a Telephone.” State law was not keeping up (shocker!) with the change in technology. So the code was amended. The cops won’t know about the “communication” unless someone tells them, so no First Amendment violation. While I think the “gubmint” are a bunch of untrustworthy, sneaky bastards, I don’t think this one is it.
Unless somebody tells them? You mean like AT&T? They’d never tell anybody…
Nothing to fear…. This is an evolution of the code for “Unlawful Use of a Telephone.” State law was not keeping up (shocker!) with the change in technology. So the code was amended. The cops won’t know about the “communication” unless someone tells them, so no First Amendment violation. While I think the “gubmint” are a bunch of untrustworthy, sneaky bastards, I don’t think this one is it.
Unless somebody tells them? You mean like AT&T? They’d never tell anybody…
The way some of the people on this web site post would be a violation of this statute and if the right politician got particularly offended they could begin the process of finding and punishing that offender.
The way some of the people on this web site post would be a violation of this statute and if the right politician got particularly offended they could begin the process of finding and punishing that offender.
FOR THE RECORD, AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN—
Comments posted on Fitsnews by me are strictly and absolutely my personal opinions, and/or my intellectual creation, and were developed, initiated, and/or plagiarized by me
—- all under duress.
His Signature: Shifty Henry
Notary for South Carolina (Lexington County): Ludwig Wittgenstein
Why are people surprised when lawmakers who espouse freedom and liberty turn around and legislate their (selective and often arbitrary) versions of morality? I’m sure you could fill a book with similar examples from all over state law. It’s what politicians do. And we elect them, so…
FOR THE RECORD, AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN—
Comments posted on Fitsnews by me are strictly and absolutely my personal opinions, and/or my intellectual creation, and were developed, initiated, and/or plagiarized by me
—- all under duress.
His Signature: Shifty Henry
Notary for South Carolina (Lexington County): Ludwig Wittgenstein
Why are people surprised when lawmakers who espouse freedom and liberty turn around and legislate their (selective and often arbitrary) versions of morality? I’m sure you could fill a book with similar examples from all over state law. It’s what politicians do. And we elect them, so…
LOL…..LOL….BRING IT ON..!!
Does anyone understand the REAL purpose of this ..?? The most powerful word in this article is “suggestive”..!!
What anyone in power wants to do is to control anyone who dares use the tactics prescribed and used by Martin Luther King to get fellow citizens to understand how to use a “suggestion” to take action at a specific time involving a specific dollar amount without the use of GUNS..!!
When the “majority” understand just how “valuable” freedom is….the very few in control counterattack with the accusations of “chaos”..!!
Case in point……when “I” (Philip Branton) dare suggest that everyone in the state of South Carolina take action on a specific day to offer their actual “vote” in this very website comment section to offer a redundant location of vote authenticity…… to prove that the vote they actually cast was in fact the way they voted….would any court dare question the validity of who the citizens were when FITSNEWS could actually verify WHO each poster is electronically..??
….when “I” (Philip C Branton) dare “suggest”……..
….yep…a penny for your “suggestive” thoughts are actually “GOLD” to ….who?
LOL…..LOL….BRING IT ON..!!
Does anyone understand the REAL purpose of this ..?? The most powerful word in this article is “suggestive”..!!
What anyone in power wants to do is to control anyone who dares use the tactics prescribed and used by Martin Luther King to get fellow citizens to understand how to use a “suggestion” to take action at a specific time involving a specific dollar amount without the use of GUNS..!!
When the “majority” understand just how “valuable” freedom is….the very few in control counterattack with the accusations of “chaos”..!!
Case in point……when “I” (Philip Branton) dare suggest that everyone in the state of South Carolina take action on a specific day to offer their actual “vote” in this very website comment section to offer a redundant location of vote authenticity…… to prove that the vote they actually cast was in fact the way they voted….would any court dare question the validity of who the citizens were when FITSNEWS could actually verify WHO each poster is electronically..??
….when “I” (Philip C Branton) dare “suggest”……..
….yep…a penny for your “suggestive” thoughts are actually “GOLD” to ….who?
Looks like a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I would agree, however, one would have to go through the whole ordeal to get that affirmed by the Supreme Court and that takes a boatload of money, an awful lot of time and plenty of suffering and persecution. Not many have the resources to fight that and would plead to a lesser charge to get out from under it, until the one person comes along that can and does fight it. But all the lives screwed up until then are still screwed up (they agreed to lesser charges and wouldn’t get automatic reversals). Kill it while it’s a pupae or deal with the bugs that come out of it.
Looks like a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I would agree, however, one would have to go through the whole ordeal to get that affirmed by the Supreme Court and that takes a boatload of money, an awful lot of time and plenty of suffering and persecution. Not many have the resources to fight that and would plead to a lesser charge to get out from under it, until the one person comes along that can and does fight it. But all the lives screwed up until then are still screwed up (they agreed to lesser charges and wouldn’t get automatic reversals). Kill it while it’s a pupae or deal with the bugs that come out of it.
It seems to me that this would apply to the Internet as well. This is the most corrupt state in America, and that’s saying something right there.
It seems to me that this would apply to the Internet as well. This is the most corrupt state in America, and that’s saying something right there.
How many times have we heard about some state prosecuting some sucker with some obscure law from 1800s or some time in the past? Heck California just let a convicted (and confessed) rapist out of jail because of an 1800s law that said it couldn’t be considered rape since the woman he raped wasn’t married (twisted individual that dreamt that one up). Just because it isn’t used today doesn’t mean someone won’t suffer tomorrow. This is one of the insidious ways government creeps into our lives and the people that say “it won’t be used that way” are part of the problem. If it can be used in a negative way it will be used in a negative way, it’s only a matter of time before someone picks it up and starts swinging. A sword can be used to crack walnuts but it’s still a sword.
How many times have we heard about some state prosecuting some sucker with some obscure law from 1800s or some time in the past? Heck California just let a convicted (and confessed) rapist out of jail because of an 1800s law that said it couldn’t be considered rape since the woman he raped wasn’t married (twisted individual that dreamt that one up). Just because it isn’t used today doesn’t mean someone won’t suffer tomorrow. This is one of the insidious ways government creeps into our lives and the people that say “it won’t be used that way” are part of the problem. If it can be used in a negative way it will be used in a negative way, it’s only a matter of time before someone picks it up and starts swinging. A sword can be used to crack walnuts but it’s still a sword.
Limited by judicial interpretation to make it constitutional
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayopinion.cfm?caseno=3192
Limited by judicial interpretation to make it constitutional
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayopinion.cfm?caseno=3192
Folks, you’re late to the game. If you like that one, read 16-15-60, 16-15-70, and 16-15-80. It is illegal in South Carolina to have sex if you’re unmarried. Into anal sex? According to 16-15-120, that’s illegal too. All of these laws are unconstitutional but no politician is going to do the responsible thing and take them off the books because that’ll make them look like they’re straying from traditional conservative family values.
Folks, you’re late to the game. If you like that one, read 16-15-60, 16-15-70, and 16-15-80. It is illegal in South Carolina to have sex if you’re unmarried. Into anal sex? According to 16-15-120, that’s illegal too. All of these laws are unconstitutional but no politician is going to do the responsible thing and take them off the books because that’ll make them look like they’re straying from traditional conservative family values.
That same exact statute – before it was amended – the punished was 10 years in prison. It was also classified as a felony as well before being amended. Then the legislatures backed up and changed the statute (mostly because so many women were using it against there ex husbands and ex boyfriends.)
Can you imagine someone being tossed in prison for 10 years because they sent a text message that said, “I want to lick you all over”???
Check the history of 16-17-430 … you can find many cases where men were once being sent to the SC Dept of Corrections for several years for violating it. Now a violation of the statute carries 30 days. Prosecutors will intentionally mis-apply this statute if they want to hang you. But the thing is now, the US Supreme Ct has made it easier to sue prosecutors. In other words, what I read is its not so easy to hide behind “prosecutorial immunity” anymore.
SC sure is a mess and seems to be getting worst.
That same exact statute – before it was amended – the punished was 10 years in prison. It was also classified as a felony as well before being amended. Then the legislatures backed up and changed the statute (mostly because so many women were using it against there ex husbands and ex boyfriends.)
Can you imagine someone being tossed in prison for 10 years because they sent a text message that said, “I want to lick you all over”???
Check the history of 16-17-430 … you can find many cases where men were once being sent to the SC Dept of Corrections for several years for violating it. Now a violation of the statute carries 30 days. Prosecutors will intentionally mis-apply this statute if they want to hang you. But the thing is now, the US Supreme Ct has made it easier to sue prosecutors. In other words, what I read is its not so easy to hide behind “prosecutorial immunity” anymore.
SC sure is a mess and seems to be getting worst.