TexasCHLforum.com

I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

TexasTornado wrote:

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

I see. If we are all to live by our own personal morality, what's the purpose of government?

TXBO wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

I see. If we are all to live by our own personal morality, what's the purpose of government?

The purpose of government is to be governed only so much as we allow ourselves to be. We can't demand religious freedom, and then want to restrict other's religious freedoms. We can't demand freedom of expression, but want to limit it for those who we disagree with. Everyone's freedoms end where someone else's begin, meaning you can live your life as you deem fit, but you can't force me to live that way. I have my belief system, and moral compass, but if yours point a different way, as long as it doesn't force me to change, there is no issue.

That is the very thing these professors were trying to do. They don't like guns, so they want to restrict someone else from having them. If they said we don't like guns, so we won't carry them, that is no problem.

TreyHouston wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

Jusme wrote:I don't think these have been amended or repealed. I think that was the reason for the "protest" in the first place because according to the Texas Penal Code, it is illegal to display these items in public, but handguns are now legal.
No one will be charged or arrested, especially in the liberal bastion that is Austin.

Nor should they be....maybe a generational difference. I think "these items" (seriously can we not be adults and just say it?) should be a much more open discussion. I mean a 12 year old can buy condoms but one must be 18 to experiment privately...and we wonder why teen pregnancy rates are what they are...but I digress..

I don't think many college students are going to be offended and make a complaint with the police due to the display. More likely they will be curious or amused or both.

I lived for 4 years in PA in my mid 20's and Toy parties are VERY popular! They even have party classes to teach guys and girls different... Personal techniques. People are very open with their sexuality. Here in Texas is a very different story. Good/bad I can't say, just different! But i can say that talking about it and not being ashamed grows confidence in who YOU ARE!

Here is the only article i could find on that case I referenced. ( I don't usually quote CNN) I can't find anything on the final resolution, but it was big news in Johnson County at the time. I think there was mention made that wouldn't be able to seat a jury who wouldn't be guilty of the same charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/

Jusme wrote:

TXBO wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

I see. If we are all to live by our own personal morality, what's the purpose of government?

..... Everyone's freedoms end where someone else's begin, meaning you can live your life as you deem fit, but you can't force me to live that way. I have my belief system, and moral compass, but if yours point a different way, as long as it doesn't force me to change, there is no issue.
.......

Ah but that's your personal morality. What about the people that don't believe that? You don't want to remove government from morality, you want government to only enforce your morality.

drifting ..?

Jusme wrote:

TXBO wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

I see. If we are all to live by our own personal morality, what's the purpose of government?

The purpose of government is to be governed only so much as we allow ourselves to be.....

I'm ok with the government telling me I have to cover my private parts and not allow me to expose myself or exhibit replications of my private parts in the presence of women and children.

TXBO wrote:

Jusme wrote:

TXBO wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

TXBO wrote:I'm generally for less law but I hope I don't have to live in a society that observes no obscenity laws. Where will it end?

It would end with people observing their individual freedoms and living their lives based on their own morals and religion, unbothered by overly sensitive politically correct insistence on conformity to another individuals personal comfort zone.

I see. If we are all to live by our own personal morality, what's the purpose of government?

..... Everyone's freedoms end where someone else's begin, meaning you can live your life as you deem fit, but you can't force me to live that way. I have my belief system, and moral compass, but if yours point a different way, as long as it doesn't force me to change, there is no issue.
.......

Ah but that's your personal morality. What about the people that don't believe that? You don't want to remove government from morality, you want government to only enforce your morality your morality.

Not true, I don't want my government to enforce any morality. I want to be free to live my life based on my morality, and not have anyone try to take that away from me or force me into a different belief system. As I said, your freedom ends where mine begins, I will never try to force someone to believe the way I do. I will discuss beliefs with them, I will debate things with them, but if we have to agree to disagree, so be it. If I choose to display my beliefs on my house, or vehicle, then you have every right to do the same, and I won't try to stop you or try to get my government to forbid you from doing so. I don't want laws that intrude upon your freedoms any more than I want them to intrude upon mine. The government should be neutral, and should strictly adhere to the Constitution.

If my morality/moral compass says that it is OK to steal from you, then that is where I have overstepped my freedom, because you have the right to your property. The same is true with any crimes against persons. The Individual's freedom is tantamount, and is prohibited, only,when it intrudes on another individual's freedom.

Stop the new protest posts now. This has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Chas.

Getting back to the lawsuit...

The court's next step is either granting the motion to dismiss outright (we can hope) or having a trial down the road to determine any "legitimate" factual issues raised by the plaintiffs. Stay tuned...

I feel like it is going to be a long time until any new post on this.. injunction denied= case on back burner....

AG should be going back to focusing on 30.06 and 30.07 complaints, I'm sure he is thinking the same

TreyHouston wrote:I feel like it is going to be a long time until any new post on this.. injunction denied= case on back burner....

AG should be going back to focusing on 30.06 and 30.07 complaints, I'm sure he is thinking the same

He's got a complaint about teachers offices on his desk as well.

TreyHouston wrote:I feel like it is going to be a long time until any new post on this.. injunction denied= case on back burner....

AG should be going back to focusing on 30.06 and 30.07 complaints, I'm sure he is thinking the same

At least by the time the court case comes around, the law will be in effect and should show that it wasn't anything to worry about.

We will see if these people try to drum up fake threats from students or something.

Plaintiffs today filed:

• 1. An amended complaint
  2. Response to the Motions to Dismiss (not attached because file size exceeds forum limit)

In the amended complaint they've added an alternative prayer for relief:

in the alternative only to subparagraph d, issue a mandatory injunction permanently prohibiting enforcement of any state statute, rule, regulation, or policy which would prevent Plaintiffs from requiring those with concealed handguns in their classrooms to identify themselves, or which would authorize imposition of sanctions if Plaintiffs require such identification;