adult.

Perhaps I wouldn't like it, but I don't believe that my hurt feelings should have anything to do with whether or not it would be permitted. Yes, I can see that. Today it's the religious freedom of Muslim Americans, tomorrow I suppose it'll be my freedom of speech for sympathizing with them, and on and on until only the true patriots have freedoms.

Yes, they are insensitive, but that is not and never should be illegal.

Unless you're just showing favoritism for Islam, I'd assume that the logic would hold.

I suppose you would be equally opposed to a church being built in Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a Nazi appreciation center would even be legal in Germany. As for the other two, though, I don't hold people's feelings in high regard when considering whether or not something should be done. So, just as with this, I can see how some would be offended, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.

So I oppose his beliefs. Great. Are we saying that anyone with whom we disagree should not be permitted to erect a building?

Since when does a community get to override the Bill of Rights? As soon as Imam Whoever starts asserting that Americans should start losing rights, I will oppose him just as much as you. Until then, I have no issue with him building a mosque, regardless of its location.

Oh goodness, was my terrorist fetish showing again?

How can there even be America without freedom of religion?

I can certainly see how some would be offended by this, but I can't say I see anything wrong with it.

The role of the FCC is to manage the airwaves; to ensure that broadcast stations don't interfere with each other and to ensure that electronic devices don't drastically interfere. Understanding that they manage the broadcast channels, they've simply taken their role too far in managing what is being broadcast over those channels. So I wouldn't say that the FCC should be done away with altogether, as one part of its job is extremely crucial; the FCC just needs to be scaled back.

Does this mean you disagree with the court? While I believe that obscenity and indecency laws are unconstitutional, I understand that some believe that these forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Even if one is to hold this belief, though, you have to understand that the FCC's current policy is extremely unfair. While "obscene" and "indecent" are only loosely defined by the FCC, and therefore left for the most part up to interpretation by broadcasters on a case-to-case basis, the policy allows the FCC to fine a broadcaster up to (I believe) $325,000 per instance of obsce

An episode of The Hills sucked? You don't say.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier today that the FCC's current indecency policy (which is incredibly vague, mind you) is unconstitutional. While the FCC will likely appeal to the Supreme Court, I personally hope that our judicial system will rule in favor of the First Amendment. Wall Street Journal: FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps:

Your first statement is correct, but I don't see the reasoning behind the second. There's no need to count the number of blue eyed people, as it's given that everyone already knows how many there are of each eye-color, themselves ignored. So each blue-eyed person knows that there are at least 99 blue-eyed people from the get-go. Using mathematical induction, each individual can reason that if he does not have blue eyes, then the n who do have blue eyes will leave on the nth night. For example: Let's say that A, B, and C have blue eyes. A does not know, however, that he has blue eyes. He

No. They all leave on the hundredth night.

After reading the solution, it does make perfect sense.

Suppose we did alter our Constitution to only allow those of a particular intelligence to vote. What kind of test could we implement that would not exclude some for purely political reasons?

To clarify, you don't think they should vote? Or you don't think they should be allowed to vote?

Why is the fact that ignorant people can vote brought up so often? Is it a subtle suggestion that perhaps these people shouldn't be allowed to vote?

I think these topics should be combined.

They do have to stop, they're just assholes. Drivers do it too.

Friends.

I commute through downtown Atlanta on a bike on a daily basis, and I do my best to take up the entire lane. When I ride to the right, drivers have a tendency to pass far too close to me. When I am in the middle of the lane, however, drivers get into the left lane and pass at a safe distance. Yes, maybe I slow them down a few seconds, but I know far too many who have lost all of their front teeth, regained consciousness coughing up blood in a gutter, and been victims of hit-and-run assholes to care about whether or not I'm impeding someone else's commute. Lawmakers know that cyclists ca

I ran out of pluses for the day, so here's a high five instead: