Attack on the First Amendment

[dellinger63]

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/

[joeydb]

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.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I know at least Riot will be on my side on this one. [/url]

I'll book that bet and lay you 2-1 against your side....

[Riot]

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

They are not confused. You are confused. By your definition, a person speaking out in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be surprised by getting his head cut off, paraphrasing, as a "consequence he receives for speaking out."

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are not confused. You are confused. By your definition, a person speaking out in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be surprised by getting his head cut off, paraphrasing, as a "consequence he receives for speaking out."

What a remarkably ridiculous attempt at a comparison. Let's keep to the subject at hand, which is a town passing a resolution - not a law - encouraging manners and lack of hate speech.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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/

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

OK, I should have said that the person would get stoned to death. Sorry.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, I should have said that the person would get stoned to death. Sorry.

Get a grip. A town passed a resolution encouraging no hate speech. Some think a society encouraging no hate speech - and no hate murders like Trayvon Williams - is a good thing.

Don't worry - your fear that one's ability to spew hate speech, and racist and sexist slurs, will be taken away isn't impinged one iota by this resolution.

Calling that resolution an "attack on the first amendment" is ridiculous and false.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

They are not confused. You are confused. By your definition, a person speaking out in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be surprised by getting his head cut off, paraphrasing, as a "consequence he receives for speaking out."

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.

Excellent comparison.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Excellent comparison.

Our constitutional republic to an oppressive monarchy?

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

Our constitutional republic to an oppressive monarchy?

Yep, just like hoping people could have half an ounce of compassion, or consideration, or basic kindness (hell, let's not even say "kindness," that's asking too much, let's instead just say "appearing, by accident or not, to have any basic decency") = POLITICALLY CORRECT NANNY STATE!

In other circles, also known as: ATTACK ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Yep, just like hoping people could have half an ounce of compassion, or consideration, or basic kindness (hell, let's not even say "kindness," that's asking too much, let's instead just say "appearing, by accident or not, to have any basic decency") = POLITICALLY CORRECT NANNY STATE!

In other circles, also known as: ATTACK ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

Nobody is preventing anybody from saying anything. Did everyone miss that fact here?

Dear god, I don't believe this: on one hand, everyone is angry over what happened to Treyvon Williams; on the other they are upset that a town has publicly come out to support less racist and sexist speech.

Nobody has removed anybody's first amendment rights. A town is merely publicly supporting less racist and sexist public speech in public discourse.

Yeah. That's a terrible, terrible thing, for society to speak out on the quality of life we have.

The City Council voted 13-2 to pass the resolution with a motion urging “the management of radio and television stations in Los Angeles to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles”.

Yeah - a clear assault on our first amendment rights, to encourage civil public discourse. What utter nonsense.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nobody is preventing anybody from saying anything. Did everyone miss that fact here?

Dear god, I don't believe this: on one hand, everyone is angry over what happened to Treyvon Williams; on the other they are upset that a town has publicly come out to support less racist and sexist speech.

Nobody has removed anybody's first amendment rights. A town is merely publicly supporting less racist and sexist public speech.

Yeah. That's a terrible, terrible thing, for society to speak out on the quality of life we have.

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

As a far left bleeding heart liberal Marxist Communist Socialist, we apparently are too cool to get irony and sarcasm

I guess that proves my cred as a stick-in-the-mud uncool unhip unwithit moderate Republican. Dang! And I SO wanted to be a Lefty!

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dang! And I SO wanted to be a Lefty!

You mean you are not!..I'm crushed...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

I know! It's embarrassing ....

[Riot]

Originally Posted by bigrun

You mean you are not!..I'm crushed...

Me, too! I guess I'll have to go with Romney now

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

Well then my point, in a clearer explanation is this:

Much of what gets labeled as "political correctness" and "first amendment attacks" is little more than a person or group of people hoping or asking that people can talk and converse without every third word out of their mouth being some kind of potentially loaded word that can be an attack on a group of people or can cause harm to other people.

Very few of these things are actually people codifying those requests into law with negative consequences from the government for doing so. Almost none, actually.

So yea, being "politically correct" is an ugly attribute to many people, but if being "politically correct" means that I don't lob harmful verbal firebombs at people all the time with the intent of hurting them, and wish that other people would consider doing the same a bit more often, then yea, sign me up for being politically correct.

Such a horrible thing that is, being empathic and trying not to hurt other people and make them feel like $hit all the time.