Clumsy Grace’s Comments

• Oct 15th, 2018 @ 7:20pm

  Re: What I still don't get...

  on A Decade's Worth Of Meth Convictions Overturned Due To Drug Lab Employee's Misconduct
  I am in complete agreement with your opinion but just want to point out that Desoxyn is prescription methamphetamine approved for ADHD and narcolepsy. I expect the absurd moral panic of the last decade+ regarding methamphetamine has probably cut into the number of prescriptions written for it but nonetheless methamphetamine is available legally.
• Jul 12th, 2018 @ 2:35am

  Re: Not clear on how far-reaching

  on Federal Court Says Taking People's Drivers Licenses Away For Failure To Pay Court Fees Is Unconstitutional
  Nobody said anything about owning, registering or insuring a car. People who do not own cars are still allowed to get driver's licenses. That affords them the legal ability to drive other cars that do not belong to them.
• Jul 4th, 2018 @ 10:23am

  Re:

  on NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
  The right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment ensures that the government will not limit speech and that the government will not punish the use of free speech.
  
  That's ALL ... nothing else. It does not compel a newspaper or other type of media outlet to provide a platform for any opinion that anyone wants published or force them to publish anything.
  
  In fact it doesn't restrict actions by anyone or any entity other than government. IMPORTANTLY: It does not offer protection from consequences imposed by others in reaction to the exercise of one's right to free speech OTHER THAN consequences imposed by the government. For instance, if an employee of a business, for example, a DJ at a radio station, tells a joke on air (or off air, for that matter) that the radio station management (or anybody else) finds offensive the 1st amendment will not prevent the DJ from being fired ... or disowned, unfriended or divorced.
  
  Something is only considered to be "against free speech" when it is the government doing the interfering.