As I suspected, your constitutional rights CAN be suspended when you are convicted of a felony. Judge Delaney explains his sentence and first amendment rights in the Newland case;
The advocacy ban was an infringement on Newland’s First Amendment rights. Delaney doesn’t deny that. But neither does he consider it more onerous or any less appropriate than many other infringements imposed as part of felony sentences.
The random searches Newland faces in the next year would be violations of his constitutional rights, but for the felony plea. Felons can face otherwise unconstitutional firearms restrictions and the right to associate with certain people or go to certain establishments, Delaney said.
“We restrict speech as well in a lot of protection orders, or in divorces, where in some cases the parties’ freedom to speak to one another may be limited,” he said
I don’t agree with limiting someone’s free speech, BUT, the judge makes a good point, felons often have many rights limited when they are on probation. It would be much worse for Bob if he was sitting in jail.
BTW, that’s a CIGAR he is smoking, not a blunt.
Not sure if you saw a post on Dakota Wuss College yesterday, but Pity Pat thought he needed to sway a judge’s decision by writing a letter to the judge that was sentencing Bob Newland (oh nevermind, he deleted the post so I couldn’t link his silliness – you are so clever PP, no wonder Munsterman hired you).
But it turns out, the judge was quite lenient on Newland;
Delaney suspended all but 45 days of the sentence however, any violation of the terms of his sentence will send Newland to jail for the full year.
I thought this quote from one of Newland’s supporter said it all;
“This just shows how silly the law is, said Newland supporter Curtis Price as he left the courtroom. Price was relieved Newland did not receive a prison sentence.
“I feel bad for law enforcement,” he added. “They have to carry out laws that are about politics and not reality.”
You ain’t kidding. Pot is harmless and has great medicinal purposes, and most intelligent people know that (of course that excludes Brookings County Republicans).
It’s a turn of events so poetic that even I couldn’t have made fiction of it. Phat Phouch, moderator of “Dakota War College,” self-styled “best political blog in South Dakota,” can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
PP says, “I see Northern Valley Beacon can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Posted by PP at the SDWC at June 17, 2009
“After I pointed out his own foibles, I see NVB’s holier than though blogger, David Newquist yanked my comment about his latest in bloviating pontification.”
The petulant phat phoucktard, Pat Powers (as his unfortunate parents designated him, and who apparently thinks that using “bloviating pontification” as a literary device means he’s smart), regularly jerks comments from his own blog’s stupid topic strings that offend his sense of self-importance.
I also notice that the stupid bastard can’t even spell “thou,” even though (note spelling thereof) I assume the overweight mackerel snapping real estate salamander has at least a passing acquaintance with the only commonly-used book still in circulation that uses that word about 60 times per page.
Ever since the exchange over his “10 Ignorant Stupid Fucking Questions” game, posed to me in 2006 (The cheap sonofabitch never even sent me the t-shirt that he admits he owes me.), I’ve been asking him a question: “Who owns you?.” He has either ignored the question or deleted it. Even a phat phoucktard can sometimes spot a situation that might lead him to have to defend a philosophical position based on absence of principles.
He finally “comments” answered the question. “Not a soul,” Phat Phouch says. He has refused to post my follow-ups to his empty answer.
Can he dish it out? Lamely. Can he take it? Well, when one bases his entire reason for being on placing one’s nose as close as possible to the asshole of what one considers power, one also has a tendency to go “ayiyiyiyiyi” whenever one is challenged on one’s stupid moronic weasel-sucking remarks.
Thank you, Phat Phouck, for providing one more example of the emptiness of the moral pretense of what you call a political philosophy (evan thou I no yew cain’t spail it).