Recommended Posts

What about the 1st Amendment? Can a judge overrule it? Cause to me it seems like a case of individual censorship. But then it's group rights vs individual and the interests of majority win.

And I do too believe that he should have been just banned from entering those premises, instead of being silenced to pronounce a harmless word.

What about the 1st Amendment? Can a judge overule it? Cause to me it seems like a case of individual censorship. But then it's group rights vs individual and the interests of majority win.

And I do too believe that he should have been just banned from entering those premises, instead of being silenced to pronounce a harmless word.

What about the 1st ammendment? The judge didn't appear to overrule it.

Freedom of speech does not equal the ability to say anything you want, anywhere you want.

What about the 1st ammendment? The judge didn't appear to overrule it.

Freedom of speech does not equal the ability to say anything you want, anywhere you want.

The kid has been forbidden from expressing himself anywhere, I assume, including his own room. That's a bit overkill. What if he just likes the sound of the word?

It's the obligation of that local bingo to arrange a safe and fair environment for their participants. What have they done to prevent such a thing from happening if they are involved in serious business (like gambling) there? Nothing. No face-, age-, ID- control, no sound-proof walls.

:D

The kid has been forbidden from expressing himself anywhere, I assume, including his own room. That's a bit overkill. What if he just likes the sound of the word?

It's the obligation of that local bingo to arrange a safe and fair environment for their participants. What have they done to prevent such a thing from happening if they are involved in serious business (like gambling) there? Nothing. No face-, age-, ID- control, no sound-proof walls.

:D

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

imho it's not the same thing.

Shouting "fire" causes panic. Shouting "bingo" doesn't cause panic.

p.s. As for the cinema, if someone disturbs my movie watching session and the administration does nothing about it, I demand a refund.

  • Like 1

It might have gone down as just a harmless (if annoying) prank. But unfortunately for Whaley, Park Hills Police Sgt. Richard Webster was working off-duty security detail at the time (must be some high rollers at this bingo hall).

Really good use of tax payers money.

When i was young the police had better things to do.

We should start a trend like that harlem shake thing that's going around, no bingo halls will be safe :D

Man that would be awesome.

p.s. As for the cinema, if someone disturbs my movie watching session and the administration does nothing about it, I demand a refund.

Me too. But it looks like she should call the police instead. Anyway according to this police officer ...

I can understand banning the use of a word in a courtroom, but preventing someone from using a word with the threat of jail time is unfair. The kid should have simply been banned from the bingo hall.

  • Like 2

imho it's not the same thing.

Shouting "fire" causes panic. Shouting "bingo" doesn't cause panic.

You mustn't have been to a bingo hall filled with old ladies lately then :rofl:

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you are not allowed to say something if it will cause panic. Go into a predominently black ghetto neighbourhood and start shouting n*****. If you get out alive, you can and should be charged with disorderly conduct (and possibly inciting a riot amongst others, although that doesn't apparently apply to Jesse Jackson for some reason but that's a whole other topic).

You mustn't have been to a bingo hall filled with old ladies lately then :rofl:

Freedom of speech doesn't just mean you are not allowed to say something if it will cause panic. Go into a predominently black ghetto neighbourhood and start shouting n*****. If you get out alive, you can and should be charged with disorderly conduct (and possibly inciting a riot amongst others, although that doesn't apparently apply to Jesse Jackson for some reason but that's a whole other topic).

Again, it's a bad comparison.

Shouting "bingo" is harmless, it doesn't ignite riots or hate. It doesn't offend anyone.

Don't think you quite understand the concept of freedom of speech...

lmao - so according to you it would be a cinema's fault for not arranging a safe and fair environment if someone decided to go into a crowded cinema and start shouting fire?

mmm.... not so sure you understand the concept of the first ammendment.

Do you understand? It would seem not.

Screaming fire in a theatre isn't a form of protected speech. Or screaming "I have a gun and I am going to shoot everyone in here" or "I planted a bomb under everyone's table and you all have 30 seconds before they detonate". Libel or slander aren't protected speech. Incitement is another one.

What he kid did was obnoxious and annoying but to argue it would have resulted in the same kind of panic, riot or chaos as those examples mentioned above is absurd. He should have been fined or warned and that should have been the end of it. Banning the kid from saying bingo is as about as stupid as it gets.

bahaha! Crazy that a judge has banned him from exercising his freedom of speech. He could just ban him from going to bingo clubs instead. Sending him to jail if he does it again is crazy.

Then he would have called the bingo hall and shouted Bingo on the phone! duh!

bahaha! Crazy that a judge has banned him from exercising his freedom of speech. He could just ban him from going to bingo clubs instead. Sending him to jail if he does it again is crazy.

Then he would have called the bingo hall and shouted Bingo on the phone! duh!

Come on you guys, the punishment here boils down to saying "don't do it again."

The punishment amounts to him being banned from saying a word. Which violates his constitutional right to freedom of speech.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!