|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-22-2012, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Attack on the First Amendment
Apparently crack ho is no longer a part of free speech!
I could understand how it could be considered defamation of character in some cases but certainly not in the case of Whitney Houston! Where is the ACLU? I know at least Riot will be on my side on this one.  http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...in-talk-radio/ 
|
|
#2
03-22-2012, 11:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
In the new "Political Correctness" era, just because something is true does not give you the right to say it.
"Political" is a qualifier. It is better to just be factually Correct. I have the first amendment right to say whatever I like, including telling them where they can shove their opinion of what I say.
|
|
#3
03-22-2012, 11:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'll book that bet and lay you 2-1 against your side.... 
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938) When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets. Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680)
|
|
#4
03-22-2012, 03:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why do people always confuse, "consequences you receive for speaking out under the First Amendment" with "attack on one's First Amendment rights"?
And a resolution urging someone not to make racist or sexist comments, doesn't prevent one from doing so. Duh. It's like your mother punishing you for cursing when you're young. Yeah, encouraging manners is a big violation of your first amendment rights, too.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#5
03-23-2012, 08:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The reason that right is there in the first place (literally) is to guarantee that there would be no consequences from the government associated with the speech itself. If you want to speak in abstract and theoretical terms about how the government might be overthrown or what the weaknesses are, you are free to do so. The individual making the analysis might actually be trying to help the government close up the holes in its defenses. However, it is of course an act of treason to actually try to overthrow the government. You can scream at the top of your lungs how ridiculous and oppressive the tax code is, but if you actually do not pay your taxes, that is the crime of Tax Evasion. Oh, duh, the government does not have a parental relationship with its citizens, so it's not like your example at all. This is government by consent of the governed, not parenting by the consent of the parented.
|
|
#6
03-23-2012, 12:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
THERE IS NO REMOVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THERE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS ANYBODY FROM CONTINUING ANY HATE SPEECH THEY WANT. THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO ANY SPEECH PUT IN PLACE HERE. Pretending there is, is simply false. Comparing this to murder by a militant group in another country is beyond ridiculous and absurd. And thinking that somebody in Saudi Arabia (using that country as an example) "gets their head cut off" shows a sad, unbelievably ignorant knowledge of what specific foreign countries are like.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 03-23-2012 at 01:07 PM.
|
|
#7
03-23-2012, 01:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
03-23-2012, 02:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
03-23-2012, 02:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 The consequences of one's free speech are all around us: Westboro Baptist gets to spew hate, and thousands get to line the street and block view of them. Geraldo gets to make stupid comments about Treyvon Williams, and the rest of the world gets to mock him. Gingrich spews racist dog whistles, and he's not elected. The KKK gets to march down a street. None of that is in any way remotely comparable to getting one's head cut off by murderers in a foreign country because of something one said. And I never, ever implied they would "deserve it" to be beheaded, nor did my comment about consequences remotely have anything to do with that. How f.uck.in'g absurd.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#10
03-23-2012, 12:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
you'd think the city council would have more important things to worry about. let the radio execs worry about their employees-this is no place for the govt. saw where dick durbin wants congressional hearings on the nfl and bounties. i think that's an absurd move as well.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
Hybrid Mode
