Presidential Debate

[Bobalouie 0]

Handled nicely above....

Just to add - Protests at military funerals are disrespectful, but protected. That's exactly what those Marines fought to protect. Folks have the right to protest govt. actions and the sad state of affairs we're in now guarantees them extra press coverage if they do it at a funeral. In times past they would've been "escorted out" but now the media is there before the funeral and those Americans with respect for the dead who would've "escorted" the disrespectful people out in times past can no longer do so.

Either way though, protest is protected speech.

Just as a side note, we recently had a pretty big military funeral here. (Matt Maupin - Army MIA for a few years, returned home a few months ago) and there were some protests scheduled along the route. One of the veterans groups, the POW/MIA guys with big Harleys, rode along with the procession and every time there were protesters along the route they'd stop in front of them and rev their engines and the flags they carried would block the protesters from view. So, in effect the protesters still had the right to protest, but the vets still had the right to keep the funeral procession respectable. They did a very good job and still everyone kept their rights.

To address the other thing - If I had a dollar for every time someone called my wife a mail-order bride or Russian ####### or something like that I wouldn't be rich, but I'd certainly have more money than what I have today. But, if I would take action against them (KA-POW!) each time, I'd be poor because lawyers cost more than several dollars. Sure, technically their speech isn't protected but I'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule my right to feed them their teeth oversteps their right to say bad words.

See, I believe that it becomes a "do unto others" type of situation. I would never debase anyones funeral, military or otherwise, and I expect the same treatment. If I did do something like that, I would fully expect to have my teeth fed to me as a response. While I would not go to jail over words about my wife, I would go to jail because of someone defiling a funeral of a friend or loved one. There are lines, permitted by free speech laws that still should not be crossed. I dont think that the right to free speech should in anyway allow a person to turn off their decency switch and engage their mouths. Thats not what the constitutianal right to free speech protects.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Bobalouie

[Danno 1,228]

I'm sure slim has his own thoughts, but Danno what you are describing often falls under assault, and is not generally protected speech. As you pointed out, it could also fall under public indecency laws. I think it's generally recognized that speech that makes somebody feel reasonably and specifically threatened is not protected. (this is my "definition," you can probably poke holes in it, but I think I'm right in general.)

If you asked me to define exactly what constitutes reasonable free speech and what constitutes blatant аsshattery, I'd be hard pressed to come up with one. In fact, the courts have been wrestling with this since day one. But I know someone screaming profanities in my wife's face is not protected, and I'm pretty sure I'd be within my rights to take reasonable precautions, including decking the guy. Free speech doesn't include harassment, which this most certainly would be. "Revelry" on the other hand, even if we find it disgusting and/or "un-American," is most definitely protected.

Here's another example of free speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk . It disgusts me to no end, but I will defend this аsshat's right to do it.

You made my "mock situation" more threatening than I wanted, I never said anyone was "in her face", obviously we have a right to self protection.

But it's true, as you say it is hard to define what is speech and what is not.

One thing I know for a fact, this modern day concept that nearly anything goes for speech has no historical basis. IN my fathers time No one would have dared speak to any women on the street like that, every man present would have beat his ###.

We are in a new era now and I'm sad to say it's not for the better.

We obsess about the individuals right to utter profane meaningless words than we do about the whole community who must endure it.

How is it we can look at the trends of Global warming and make a determination but our social trends are blind to us?

Anyway, I gotta run.

[Danno 1,228]

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

Didn't Woolworths make this same argument about their lunch counters?

Many of these school are Built and operated tax payer money, it's not quite like a web-site.

But the main point you missed was the hypocritical actions to silence honest, legit opinion.

We lost respect for Jimmy Swaggert (if we ever had it) after it became known he wasn't practicing what he preached, I don't see much difference here... though both may have a "right"

to act contrary to the lessons they insist others learn.

[slim 1,533]

Many of these school are Built and operated tax payer money, it's not quite like a web-site.

So if we can create speech codes for schools, why can't we silence those on public assistance? Their concerns seem to be taken pretty seriously by the government even though they don't pay for representation.

[Danno 1,228]

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

Freedom of speech is often misunderstood to mean that enyone can say anthing they want, anywhere. This is not the case of course. As pertains to academic institutions, however, they have a long tradition of supporting free speech. That's why people such as the Iranian President (whose name I can't be bothered to spell check at the moment ) are invited to speak at universities, despite the abhorrant views they hold.

People also believe that forums such as VJ are havens of free speech, and that when a post is deleted or edited by a moderator, that this is "censorship." But nobody has the right to free speech on private property, which is what VJ is. You can't go into a Walmart and start picketing them, because it's private property. But you can stand on the public sidewalk out front of their store and picket to your heart's content.

Wal-mart is in the business of exchanging money

A State Collage is in the business of exchanging ideas.

Care to address the Hypocrite angle?

[slim 1,533]

Wal-Mart is private.

State funded schools are public.

Anything funded by the public is subject to equality standards and therefore anything deemed "offensive" isn't protected. Wal-Mart is subject to a certain degree of equality standards too, however they're entitled to form opinions on certain issues and stick with them because they pay for the right to do that. So do you in your own house, business, etc. But, like mox said, once you walk out on the "public" sidewalk in front of your house, anyone can stand there and hold up a sign.

[groovlstk 0]

I witnessed someone being beaten on 9/11, an Egyptian guy in Jersey City, in full view of the smoke and debris that was obscuring most of lower Manhattan.

I was in a liquor store waiting to pay for a bottle of much-needed Jameson's on the worst day of my life when a young Arab guy ran up to the open door and yelled "EGYPT OWNS THIS COUNTRY!" People turned to look but most were still in a state of shock over the events earlier that day, no one even commented, but I could hear the guy repeating this line as he went door-to-door along the street. When I exited the shop he was on the sidewalk surrounded by a group of black men who were beating the holy living Jesus out of him.

Did I feel sorry for him? Not a whit.

Did I try to help him? Nope.

Was it wrong? Technically, yes.

Did he get what he deserved? Yes, he got exactly what he was looking for, and then some.

Seven years later and I haven't the faintest degree of empathy or sympathy for him.

[slim 1,533]

And why was it that it was a group of black men beating him?

[groovlstk 0]

Seven years later and I haven't the faintest degree of empathy or sympathy for him.

If you believe might makes right, then I guess this makes sense.

If I went into an African American neighborhood and started shouting racial epithets, I'd deserve to get a good popka-whoopin'. The man was no innocent bystander chosen at random. He peed on the wrong group of people at the absolute worst possible time. He knew the possible consequences yet couldn't contain his joy at what he witnessed that day.

On the other hand, what if the guy had been mentally handicapped? Over-medicated? Under-medicated? So completely hysterical over recent events that he wasn't in control of his mental faculties? You think you were seeing the whole story, but there's a good chance you weren't.

Someone who watched the day's events on TV, who wasn't there to witness the exchanges I described, and could never fathom the emotions local people were feeling in the immediate aftermath wants to tell me I really didn't understand what I saw?

Do you realize how sanctimonious that is?

[Danno 1,228]

Ahh the guy got what was coming to him.

We lock up or execute people for giving aid and comfort to an enemy.... In the spirit of this logic, the guy got off easy.

[slim 1,533]

I still think we're missing something here.....

Why is it that those who purchase top shelf don't take action? They "feel" but yet don't do anything?

Those who aren't purchasing top shelf actively group together and react.

Care to expand on that?

[groovlstk 0]

Please. The "I was there, it affected me more than it affected you, so you have no right to question my perceptions" is a tired fallacy that's been used for 7 years to shut down any conversation--sorry but I'm not buying it. You should look up the definition of "sanctimounious" before you start applying it so loosely.

I love reading these sanctimonious - yes, I know what the word means, and unlike you I know how to spell it - discussions about due process and justice after the fact. Mox, you're so willing to take into account that the poor guy who was beaten was off his meds that day, are you willing to extend the same possibility to the guys who beat him? Maybe they were "completely hysterical over recent events" and were not in control of their mental faculties, excuses you are quick to extend to the guy who ignited the fracas but not those who were initially minding their own business and wanted nothing more than to get on with their day.

Mox, you and your pals have the luxury of sitting here and preaching about justice and due process with all the earnestness of philosophers chained to a madhouse wall. I'm sorry if it sticks in your craw, but you could never understand the shock and tension in the air that day.

I gave you some really good examples of what might have been going on, and you ignored them because it conflicts with your own prejudices. You saw what you wanted to see.

Really good examples? Such as the guy was off his meds? Please, tell it to Dr. Phil or Oprah.

[groovlstk 0]

yes, I know what the word means, and unlike you I know how to spell it

Damn that spelling mistake rule that automatically loses me the argument. Oh if only I'd been more careful with my spell checking.

Mox, actually that was a low blow on my part. I know you know how to spell it. So I may have to wrest the mantle of defeat from your grasp.

[slim 1,533]

You guys are still dodging the race card...... well, that'd be the SOP, right?

[groovlstk 0]

You guys are still dodging the race card...... well, that'd be the SOP, right?

Slim, sorry if my initial post was confusing, there should be no race issue, it's just geography.

The area where this happened is sort of a conflux of two distinct neighborhoods, one Egyptian and one African American. There are actually more tensions between Copt and Muslim factions within the Egyptian neighborhood. I honestly can't imagine any different outcome were this to have occurred in the Italian, Polish, Puerto Rican, or any other nearby communities.