Juror booted out for naughty T-shirt

I did flag the thread for an interesting topic btw. But I agree with the others, I think she was just trying to get off jury duty.

Our free speech is being taken away. But what was the message she was trying to get across and why.

I believe that the right decision was made. Of course we have the freedom of speech; the girl is allowed to wear the shirt, just not make important decisions about others lives.

In a court room you can be dismissed as a juror for a variety of reasons. The court room is a professional place where important decisions are made. If you fail to dress appropriately for the situation, proving that you are not capable of preforming the duty being asked, then you should be dismissed. When you go to work you dress appropriately because that is what is expected. When you are a juror in court the same rules apply.

It has been mentioned that this young girl may have been trying to get out of juror duty. If that's the case then I still agree that she should have been dismissed. If she would go as far as to put effort into getting out of juror duty, then how could we expect her do the job asked?

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by LurkingSleipner

 

First - "insert rediculous number" for not paying attention.

Where did I state anything about what was morally right or wrong? I do not even recall using the word moral in my post. Why insinuate I am putting something in my post that is not there.

I never said anything about the shirt being moral or not. I said respect the rules that are set before you when you go some place. Your reply makes little sense other than ramblings of someone who feels “offended” by someone “pushing” morals down their throat when there was nothing of the sort taking place.

Facts are you know before you go to court the rules of dress that are in place. If you are not bright enough to follow those rules you are not bright enough to participate in the judgment of what another person’s future will hold for them. Simple enough?

Let me say it again.
If you are not intelligent or mature, enough to read and follow rules set before you you have no business making decisions in another’s life. Putting on something that would be less distracting is not that difficult a task and does not seem to much to ask either.

Raist

First if you do not understand the width and breadth of my post you patently are ignorant in regards to the basis of both my post and your original one replied to, i indeed find it possible for you to post without understanding the true measure of your entire post. Morality is the basis of it together with values and ideals.

The basis of your post was a moral stage on which you find respect to the authority, i.e the judge, to appear as the be all and end all for this supposed private property. For when he has dictatorial rule over the room it is indeed not the peoples property if he has dictatorial rule, as Muzzleflash has stated.

My statements of the ignorance is not to offend you, simply to show you lack the comprehension skills to read others posts and compare the entirety in a sense towards the topic as a whole. You seem unwilling to accept conjecture, which is indeed well written and presented to you, by simply stating it as ramblings.

I am not offended by your writing. I'm simply distressed as the attitude shown form your posts presents a mental faculty shared by many Americans. That of simplicity and herd mentality obeying something because it is a law or obeying someone because they have authority.

They do not have complete and utter control over you unless you allow it. They have no power, they are simply a conductor through which the peoples power is funneled and molded.

The problem though as i stated is that many Americans share that attitude and ideals contrary to the founding of this country. The country was based on questioning authority and fighting injustices, by breaking the bonds of mans inhumanity to man and working towards a common goal of setting up a more perfect union, based inside of a republic. If the founding fathers could see our laziness and our fondness to sit idly or out rightly fight for the ideals of an oppressive government they worked so hard to original fight against they would be saddened beyond words.

Is this more clear to you? Shall I summarize the issue at hand here?

Basically you cannot have restrictions on god given rights through legislation. That is the first step towards oppressive government and fascism. If you allow one iota or tic to be shaven from our natural rights then it is a downward path we journey upon. And furthermore this judge is legislating form the bench, using prior legislation to back his opinion based rulings to hold those in contempt of court or to dismiss a juror or any other action he may take.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Unfortunately, some people have come to the ridiculous conclusion that freedom can only be achieved by law and therefore have no respect for anarchy and common sense.

Oh, that's cute how you flipped words around to make a faux-clever rebuttal. Too bad it doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone have respect for anarchy? Take a stroll through Somalia if you want to see how much freedom you have in the absence of law.

As for common sense? The key word is "common." Commonly, people have the sense to know that you don't wear "F***" on your shirt when you serve on jury duty.