So, how much do you love freedom?

[Ronin13]

This is the ultimate test of people's support of the 1st Amendment! Here is the story:
Read Me

And here is the question: Despite them naming their kids these really awful names, do you think it was right of their kids to be taken just because the parents are bad with names (and probably should pick a new group to follow)? I think freedom is freedom, no matter how much you hate it, if it's not violating the rights of others it should be allowed. Freedom is not, do what you want as long as you don't offend anyone... this is some Commie BS! It cannot be allowed to stand- and for the record I'm totally against people who protest at fallen service members funerals, but if they're not hurting anyone physically they do have a right to, as long as it's not private property and they're not trespassing.

[Elhuero]

our stuff is hanging by a thread.

[Graves]

I personally take no offense to their names, its more of a representation as to how easy it is for two morons to breed. They'll likely end up in some inner city school and catch hell all the way through and to that I say...lol.

[Hoosier]

I personally take no offense to their names, its more of a representation as to how easy it is for two morons to breed. They'll likely end up in some inner city school and catch hell all the way through and to that I say...lol.

My mom taught Emotionally and Mentally Handicapped kids in inner city schools. It's pretty depressing to hear about what these kids went through, and how messed up they become from it.

A lot of them end up being life long disability cases that the government pays for. Even when they're young, they get "SI" checks that she heard parents call their "mad money" because the kid was diagnosed with mental or emotional issues.

H.

[Graves]

It'll be a test of weather or not their names will stay. Even though their folks are a couple of dousche nozzles, I'm betting they'll come to their senses and change tiger names.

[cstone]

From the news story:

"Court records also show that the oldest child, Adolf, frequently threatened to kill people.

The mother reportedly had also once given a note to her neighbour saying she was terrified of her husband who had threatened to kill her."

There is so much more to this story than is reported by the Daily Mail, a paper I personally consider to be nothing more than a British tabloid notorious for sensationalizing rather than reporting.

Presumably, little Adolf has a birth certificate or some other form of documentation issued by a government entity. This government issued document would have his name on it, and therefore the need for a complaint called in to social services by the Walmart Bakery about an odd choice in names, seems to be a little suspect.

Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."

[Hoosier]

I think freedom is freedom, no matter how much you hate it, if it's not violating the rights of others it should be allowed. Freedom is not, do what you want as long as you don't offend anyone... this is some Commie BS!

You should be free to do what you want, as long as you are not materially harming another person without their consent.

If these adults wanted to change their own names to "Adolph Hilter" and "Aryan Nation", more power to them. The problem comes when you start talking about raising a kid with the name Adolph Hilter. Lets face it, that is going to have a dramatic impact on a kid growing up, right? Imagine going through world history class with that name.

No, you don't have the right to set your child up for a lifetime of abuse. It's as invasive as the government legally requiring you to educate children. Ideally this is something that should never happen, parents are supposed to love their kids and want what's best for them. When that's not the case, someone needs to intervene on behalf of the children. It's not a vague example of how it's "to protect the kids", but a specific example of two kids whose parents obviously feel that their form of political speech is more important than their childrens state of being.

H.

[hammer03]

No, you don't have the right to set your child up for a lifetime of abuse. It's as invasive as the government legally requiring you to educate children. Ideally this is something that should never happen, parents are supposed to love their kids and want what's best for them. When that's not the case, someone needs to intervene on behalf of the children. It's not a vague example of how it's "to protect the kids", but a specific example of two kids whose parents obviously feel that their form of political speech is more important than their childrens state of being.

H.

Tricky business, drawing lines in the sand like that. Adolph Hitler Campbell is too much, what about Adolph as a first name? What about things like Flower, Pi, or Apple? How about telling your kids that the earth is flat, aliens exist, or that Obama was a great president? Where do you draw the line on people's ability to parent?

I can think of PLENTY of other people who can't afford to AND don't want to AND should never have been parents, that still have their kids (and like mentioned above, collect a gov't paycheck because of them...

[Byte Stryke]

so do we start arresting people named "Head" with kids named Richard?

what about people that name their kids Moonbeam?


or that name their kids after the characters of Bonanza?


I agree... abuse is bad... stupid people shouldn't breed, but where is the line?

[Elhuero]

the government has absolutely no place stepping into a man's family and his business.

the pendulum swings.

once, a child was basically a man's property, to do with as he pleased. he could treat them as good or as bad as he wanted. force them to work (that's why school's out in the summer, so kids could go work on the farm) or abuse and neglect them. beat his wife.

the pendulum swung back, and the government started to protect kids. children in an abusive home would be removed, deadbeat dads would be punished for not paying child support.

but it keeps swinging, and now has swung too far.

now, the government is overstepping it's bounds. politically incorrect name? take the child. father supports the oath keepers? take the child. (this happened in new hampshire) now the legal system is horribly biased toward women, and men are the victims of financial rape in divorce proceedings.

the pendulum will swing until it hits the wall that is the limit the people will allow. when the people decide they've had enough, they can stop the pendulum dead in it's tracks.

now if adolf and goebbels or whatever he named them were being abused and neglected, I'd have no problem with the state doing something about it


but the question byte poses is key. where is the line? with the government, once a line is crossed that ground is lost and they very very rarely give it back. if we let the government continue to make up reasons and provide excuses why this action needs to be taken, or that freedom needs to be trimmed a bit for the greater good, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY, then before you know it they will be banging down your door, taking your children to protect them from all the dangerous guns you posess. or from the pervasive ideals you are teaching them by homeschooling rather than enrolling them in public school. or whatever thing that is against the will of the government.

and if you resist you will be killed. because you threatened the life of our intrepid protectors. those that run towards danger rather away from it, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. how dare you!

some people will scoff and say it's impossible. maybe even mock me, call me a cop hater like they have in the past. but that's what we're heading for, folks. it happened in germany and it can happen here. and with all these occupy wherever protests going on, it just shows that there are a LOT of people out there that are absolutely gagging for it. they are practically throwing their freedoms over the fence onto the white house lawn and demanding the government take care of them.

and now we see here a family that has won. the courts have ruled in their favor. yet where are their children? how long must they wait for the government to obey the lawful order of the court?

bet your ass if the coin was reversed and the government was on the waiting end, they'd have the swat team shooting dogs and tossing flashbangs with a quickness.

we are stewing in a pot, and the page of the cookbook is titled DISASTER.