[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Which means that if Paul Fray was an illegitimate child born to a Jewish mother, and was engaged at the time in a sexual act, then and only then would Hillary Clinton have been within her First Amendment rights to call him a “fucking Jew bastard.”[/quote]
Uh, what?
“Fighting words” have to be said to a party in a context that might provoke contemporaneous “fighting”.
What are you talking about exactly?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Which means that if Paul Fray was an illegitimate child born to a Jewish mother, and was engaged at the time in a sexual act, then and only then would Hillary Clinton have been within her First Amendment rights to call him a “fucking Jew bastard.”
Uh, what?
“Fighting words” have to be said to a party in a context that might provoke contemporaneous “fighting”.
What are you talking about exactly?
[/quote]
It was in reference to an incident back in 1974, where Hillary allegedly screamed “you fucking Jew bastard!” at an aide, Paul Fray (who was not, in fact, Jewish), whom she blamed for Bill’s failed bid for an Arkansas congressional seat.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It was in reference to an incident back in 1974, where Hillary allegedly screamed “you fucking Jew bastard!” at an aide, Paul Fray (who was not, in fact, Jewish), whom she blamed for Bill’s failed bid for an Arkansas congressional seat.[/quote]
I was familiar with that story, I was just wondering how you meant it as applied to a “fighting words” constitutional claim. But I see.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
‘Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,’ said Maxime Verhagen
Uh, that is precisely what the freedom of expression means. To express things others may not like. Shit she sounds like Hillary.
I’ve been censored on this board for using the N word.
Can I ask your reason for doing so?
Probably to tell us the original lyrics to “Ten Little Indians.”
…[/quote]
He was not censored for that.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
‘Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,’ said Maxime Verhagen
Uh, that is precisely what the freedom of expression means. To express things others may not like. Shit she sounds like Hillary.[/quote]
You sound like a republican, unable to distinguish between “not liking” and “being offended”.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
‘Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,’ said Maxime Verhagen
Uh, that is precisely what the freedom of expression means. To express things others may not like. Shit she sounds like Hillary.
You sound like a republican, unable to distinguish between “not liking” and “being offended”.
[/quote]
…
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
‘Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend,’ said Maxime Verhagen
Uh, that is precisely what the freedom of expression means. To express things others may not like. Shit she sounds like Hillary.
You sound like a republican, unable to distinguish between “not liking” and “being offended”.
[/quote]
Maybe he is a republican that grasps that that distinction is irrellevant when it comes to free speech?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
[/quote]
Oh god, oh no. You are right, that is horribly daft.
This seems to be happening a lot back home…I don’t know, it’s so daft I feel almost proud to be British…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
[/quote]
Haha.
Hey, Sloth… what was I just saying a while ago about pandering to bigots and extremists?
Looks like the British have us beat by at least two leagues and a furlong.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
Haha.
Hey, Sloth… what was I just saying a while ago about pandering to bigots and extremists?
Looks like the British have us beat by at least two leagues and a furlong.
[/quote]
Heh. It’s funny, when one distances oneself from extremist thought, to only see one’s own government pander to the same. I grow more sympathetic to Nationalist types every day. Maybe I’m becoming a culturalist, as opposed to a racist. I don’t care what color a person is, but they’re going to assimilate to “Western” culture and thought, and not the other way around. Multiculturalism is a joke.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
For non-DailyMail-readers, here’s what the BBC had to say;
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Just when you think it couldn’t get more retarded the British step in to one up the stupdity.
For non-DailyMail-readers, here’s what the BBC had to say;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm[/quote]
I don’t see how this is so very different from a bunch of Sudanese idiots throwing a fit because a schoolteacher named a teddy bear Muhammad.
They have mullahs, we have PC.
I mean, it’s bad enough that Little Black Sambo has been tossed down the memory hole for being “offensive” to black people (the irony being, of course, that Sambo was not African, but Indian: no tigers in Africa), and yeah, maybe The Three Little Pigs is not worth getting up in arms about, but is Western Civilization really going to continue down this path of self-censorship for fear of alienating or offending even a single person?
Not with a bang, but with a timid, politically-correct whimper. What a fucking shame.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I don’t see how this is so very different from a bunch of Sudanese idiots throwing a fit because a schoolteacher named a teddy bear Muhammad.
They have mullahs, we have PC.
I mean, it’s bad enough that Little Black Sambo has been tossed down the memory hole for being “offensive” to black people (the irony being, of course, that Sambo was not African, but Indian: no tigers in Africa), and yeah, maybe The Three Little Pigs is not worth getting up in arms about, but is Western Civilization really going to continue down this path of self-censorship for fear of alienating or offending even a single person?
Not with a bang, but with a timid, politically-correct whimper. What a fucking shame.[/quote]
What ya gonna do?
I guess that’s what you get for not having a constitution.
[quote]lixy wrote:
What ya gonna do?
I guess that’s what you get for not having a constitution.[/quote]
Problem is, we do. It’s sitting right there in the National Archives building for everyone to see, only I guess hardly anybody in Washington bothers to read it anymore.
Or did you mean the Brits?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:
What ya gonna do?
I guess that’s what you get for not having a constitution.
Problem is, we do. It’s sitting right there in the National Archives building for everyone to see, only I guess hardly anybody in Washington bothers to read it anymore.
Or did you mean the Brits?[/quote]
I meant the Brits. But your point stands nonetheless.
Britains problems are a lot deeper than not having a constitution. They have some real extremist nuts running the government. There is a deeply ingrained culture of radicalism in the UK and in other parts of Europe.
That is why it is good to study some of the political scene there, because we can see where some of our politicians get some of their ideas. ie the “fair tax” national sales tax, in Britain they call it Value Added Tax or VAT. VAT is part of the reason why a twenty seven dollar tub of Metabolic Drive costs over fifty dollars in the UK.
The British labour party has been run by radicals for a long time. That is the reason why Tony Blair had to rebrand Labour as Nu-Labour in order to get elected in 1997. Before Tony Blair came along and gave the party a new image their reputation was shot because of policies like the ones they are pursuing now. PC is their most effective tool for bullying the people into silence.
Quite the funny update on that story:
Dutch Islam film website ‘shut’
A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
So, while there don’t seem to be any real moves by ‘Europe’ to actually stop Wilders’ movie, it’s the US-based ISP to (at least temporarily) pull the plug.
But to turn this into ‘is the US abandoning free speech’ would be an overreaction - just like the thread itself.
Can’t help but chuckle a bit though… 
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Quite the funny update on that story:
Dutch Islam film website ‘shut’
A website that a Dutch right-wing politician was planning to use to release a film expected to be fiercely critical of Islam has been suspended.
So, while there don’t seem to be any real moves by ‘Europe’ to actually stop Wilders’ movie, it’s the US-based ISP to (at least temporarily) pull the plug.
But to turn this into ‘is the US abandoning free speech’ would be an overreaction - just like the thread itself.
Can’t help but chuckle a bit though…
Makkun[/quote]
This is an excellent example of why corporations shouldn’t be given control over the internet. Today, they filter work critical of the Quran. Tomorrow, they may try to censor critics of the Iraq war, deforestation of the Amazon, etc.
Can’t say you haven’t been warned.