Another Assault on the First Amendment

I've read it in completion and in depth, but hey, whatevery you say

 

:sleep:


Nothing like an intellectually challenging discussion on the constitution and case history!
:laugh:


Me thinks my constitution is ready for a midday nap.

 

Uh, I was actually in agreement with the notion that it might be a first amendment violation, until I did my homework, and discovered it wasn't. I've invited you and anyone else to cite any precedent to support the idea that it's a first amendment violation, in case my result was in error. No one has done, so, including you. And what is your response? To call me uninformed and ignorante. The ignorance is obviously yours, which you alone will need to fix.

 

Uh, that's because there is nothing to support the claim that it's a violation of the first amendment. There's nothign in either the OP or the linked article that cites anything. If you have a case citation, then by all means please cite it.

 

Sir, since I've made it abundantly clear that I have read not only the OP in detail, but also the link, whenever you make the claim that I haven't read it, you are engaging in a lie, and we all know what that makes you.

Now, kindly provide support for the concept that a subpoena for a website's hit/visit information is a violation of Amendment I. There's nothing in the OP, and nothing in the link, that supports that. Further, there's no case law to support it.

 

I guess it's only a first amendment issue if it violates free speech, or infringes on the freedom of the press.......

 

I wasn't talking about the gag order. That's obviously out of bounds regarding Amendment I. I was referring to the subpoena for the site's IP/hit records. I made that clear in my very first post, and several posts thereafter.

I wasn't talking about your mule, Tevye, I was talking about your daughter.

 

I did so already. The gag order is obviously out of bounds regarding Amendment I. The subpoena for the site's IP/hit records is not.

I said no such thing. I said I have been unable to find legal precedence for a subpoena on IP/hit records to be a violation.

Now you're just being puffy. There were two issues here. The Subpoena for hit records, and the gag order. I have been discussing the submoena for hit records, and you thought I was referring to the gag order. I was not.

 

I made myself clear. You're just strutting.

In post number 2, I expressly stated I was referring to the subpoena for gathering of information pertaining to "subscribing to a periodical, or to a person visiting a website".

In post number 3, You stated that you believed the subpoena to be a violation of privacy rights. You said nothing of the gag order, but were referring to the subpoena.

It's obvious that you're either now changing your tune for the purpose of strutting. And you have the nerve to call me disingenuous? Your very words display your own disingenuousness.

 

It's obvious YOU'RE not paying attention. In post#2, I expressly referred to the subpoena, and in post#3, you were likewise referring to the subpoena (not the gag order).

You're obviously being disingenuous.