And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment.
I honestly dont know why you believe this to be the case.
And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment.
I honestly don’t know why you believe this to be the case.
I know that's what we all say and think, but if a case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm not so sure what the outcome would be.
Anyway, in the scenario, Bob is being criticized for two things: breaking the club rules, and violating federal law. While we all agree that Bob is being an anti-social jerk for violating the club rules, there is the much larger issue of FAA-controlled airspace and FAR regulations. TRF doesn't have any such federally mandated regulations. And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.
And when people intentionally bust waiver and impulse limits, that’s a one-strike and out situation at pretty much any field, Real or hypothetical, for exactly the reason everybody else has cited: you’re risking an FAA shutdown of your whole field and pretty much deep sixing your chances for future waivers.
So the answer is, s****w ‘em. Play by the rules or go home.
I know that's what we all say and think, but if a case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm not so sure what the outcome would be.
Anyway, in the scenario, Bob is being criticized for two things: breaking the club rules, and violating federal law. While we all agree that Bob is being an anti-social jerk for violating the club rules, there is the much larger issue of FAA-controlled airspace and FAR regulations. TRF doesn't have any such federally mandated regulations. And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.
...
And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.
One could make a case, but it would be thrown out of court. At least through district and appellate. Maybe the Supremes would take it on, if they were feeling feisty.
As usual, there's an XKCD for everything. https://xkcd.com/1357/
Also here: https://www.quora.com/Is-moderation-in-forums-violating-Americans-right-to-free-speech
And in Section 3 here: https://harvardcrcl.org/first-amendment-on-private-campuses/
And here: https://www.slate.com/articles/news...why_can_shopping_malls_limit_free_speech.html
Seriously, there's not much question about this. I suppose it's possible the Supreme Court would throw out a couple of centuries of precedent if they got a case, but it seems unlikely.
PS Bob should have flying privileges taken away after the first flight and given a stern talking to. After the second flight, he should be permanently kicked out. If he tries to come back, local cops should be called. No need to let air out of his tires, but I doubt there'd be witnesses if they mysteriously spring a leak.
Once air guard military protocols are triggered there are few chances for civil pilots to rebut. It generally goes like are you having serious issues that are a threat to national security (they word it differently) yes or no? If no you remain escorted by armed Air Gaurd. If yes lethal force with heavy ordinance gets authorized.
When I read the scenario I can't help but feel I am being led to an opinion. I suspect that this hypothetical scenario, once it has enough mass moving in the intended direction, will be swapped out for a "real" world scenario.
I honestly don’t know why you believe this to be the case.
Raises a question: since the FAA regs are federal law, then Bob is committing a criminal act, no? So the club could conceivably call the FBI and invite them to the next launch, and if Bob does his thing, he gets escorted off the field in handcuffs.
Sorry, but anyone who would feel sympathy for Bob and allow him to continue his lawbreaking should be removed from the club as well. Period.
I can promise you that Bob would not be launching at MDRA under these conditions.
Bob should be banned, at least temporarily, after the first incident. And other area clubs and NAR and Tripoli informed. If he does it again then a permanent ban. If he does not like the rules he can try to get them changed, not simply break them.
Forums set their own rules. Otherwise people could post nudes or even pornography. I am a moderator on another forum. Content is deleted and members are suspended or banned all the time.
Bob should be banned, at least temporarily, after the first incident.
Bob has been banned or at least changed to another account name at least once, the name changes but the actions remain the same.Sorry Andrew, Bob will not induce warheads on foreheads.
Sounds like Bob is an oxygen thief who only cares about Bob. Suspend privileges after the first violation and boot him after the second. He should also be reported to NAR/Tripoli.
Is it still okay to be mildly amused at unintentional humour? :-DNational Agnostics day ( dont care if it exists as this is an example)
Is it still okay to be mildly amused at unintentional humour? :-D
Enter your email address to join: