quote: "There will always be people who are offended by political speech, and the most important forum of all ... is one's own residence. The First Amendment is meaningless unless dissent is allowed."
True...
quote: "Even if you don't agree with it, he has the right to state his opinion. I don't find it offensive at all."
posted
It doesn't matter whether or not we're offended. It matters whether or not we think he should be prevented from being able to do it.
Obscenity laws restrict free speech in areas such as sexually explicit and foul language. There is nothing illegal, though, about saying something politcally radical.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
But I've spent five years in art school and most things don't offend me anymore. A little sad, really.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, are you asking if it is offensive? Yes, it is. But then again, so is this war.
My husband was in the Army and National Guard for most of the 80s. He's damned proud that he served his country. He's offended that his president lied to him and the rest of the country. He's offended that US troops are being used to advance a political agenda. He's offended that his one surviving nephew (because the other one was killed in the Navy) is currently in Tikrit because the Middle East is where the oil is. He's not just offended, he's pissed off about it. He believes the honor of our troops has been stained by this. What we are doing in the Middle East may turn out okay in the end, though he doesn't think it will. But in the mean time, US troops are giving their lives because of lies the government told.
So, yes, it's offensive. And yes, the way we got into the war is offensive. And yes, now that we've started it, we have to finish it. And yes, our taxes really aren't paying for the war. It will be our children and grandchildren's taxes that will pay for the war.
However, all that said, why exactly do you think we are in the Middle East? To bring democracy? To give people free speech? Why do you insist that people who have different opinions than you should be silenced? You need to go watch The American President again and find out why it's a good thing to be a card carrying member of the ACLU.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue here is "Free Speech" more than it is the War in Iraq.
I believe he has the right to do it, but I also believe the community (not the government)has an obligation (as long as they disagree with the way the message was presented) to invoke punishments however they see fit.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, all that said, why exactly do you think we are in the Middle East? To bring democracy? To give people free speech? Why do you insist that people who have different opinions than you should be silenced? You need to go watch The American President again and find out why it's a good thing to be a card carrying member of the ACLU.
WTF? Where did Jay say this person should be silenced? In fact, didn't he say this? "You can still say they have the right to hang it. But you can still be offended."
It's free speech people. That means they have the right to hang the uniform. We have the right to call them offensive. The paper has the right to publish an article full of people calling them offensive. The people in the town have the right to call them names, within the bounds of libel, and to post equally offensive responses.
posted
I really like Scott’s idea. Any time these people come into a place you just say sorry we’re booked. They come through your check out line. Oops. Sorry this lane is closed. They want to buy a movie ticket, oh sorry sold out. The only problem there is that not very many people watch news anymore and most people wouldn’t have a clue what’s going on. And then there’d be the other group who wouldn’t be offended by it. Oh well. But I do like the idea.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the fact that he lives in a major metropolitan area, and it's very easy to be anonymous.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, actually, I had you in mind when I posted. Some vague exchange between you and Tom in the "Absurd" thread.
And Jay, by agreeing with the shunning technique, is pretty much agreeing that they should be silenced. Conform or be cut out of society. Seems pretty totalitarian to me.
Jay has always been neo con. It's not much of a leap to suspect that he thinks they should be silenced. Bush has implied that dissent is equal to treason. Card did it recently. I'm sure this would be considered along the same lines as "giving aid to the terrorists."
However, I wanted Jay to know that even bleeding liberals like me think it's offensive, even if we agree with the sentiment.
I don't think conservatives or liberals, but more often than not, conservatives, are willing to admit to faults within their own ideological subset. This is a fault. I agree. It's offensive.
However, that doesn't negate the offensiveness that precipitated it.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the life of me I can't understand why you feel the community has a right to punish someone in any way for something this person has a right to do, just because they're offended.
At the most, I think the community can ask for it to be taken down. Otherwise I find it more offensive to treat a member of your community in that manner solely for speaking their mind.
posted
It really bothers me, that someone expressed their outrage by desecrating a symbol of the people that fight and die for their right to be able to express it. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But most bussiness owners "reserve the right to deny service." Is it Totalitarian to deny service to a person without a shirt? Is it Totalitarian to not let a persons pet in your store?
I honestly think you're throwing labels.
[EDIT: The thread is moving to fast. This was pointed toward Kayla (with all due respect, of course.)]
posted
Civil disobedience can be a good thing and, at times, a necessary thing. However, it seems that nowadays, people don't have the sand to stick to their convictions in the face of opposing viewpoints.
It's like Prof. Churchill's drivel on the 9/11 event and the backlash he suffered. Well, if that is what he believes and that is what he published, he has the right to say it, no matter how inflammatory it may be. However, the public has the right to react to his words and shun him at their will. Colleges can cancel his speaking engagements and the press can hound him.
But it becomes a little disingenuous, or even wimpy, for him or his like to then run crying saying "But Mommie, they don't like me... make them stop."
This fellow can hang the uniform if he feels that is the statement he wants to make. But just as the First Ammendment protects his free speech, it protects those of the people who are offended by him. His neighbor can put a big sign in his own yard that says "I live next door to an idiot." (Hopefully with an arrow pointing to the correct neighbor).
But it's like the WTO protesters who were involved in the Seattle rioting a while back. They trashed the city and destroyed a lot of property. And then some of them complained when the police arrested them.
Do we not teach cause and affect anymore? Doesn't anyone hold themselves responsible for the repercussions of their own actions? Does it cheapen the message of a strong political statement if at the end the person says "Don't be upset with me with what I say!"?
Or was this fellow looking to martyr himself a bit and become an outcast, with the hanged uniform an easy way to get there. Let's face it, we do have a large number of neurotic victims in waiting just looking for an incident.
Case in point: Two people called the FCC to complain this year after the Super Bowl's halftime show. They were calling to complain about last year's Janet Jackson breast-baring incident. They said they were still traumatized from last year.
quote: Do we not teach cause and affect anymore? Doesn't anyone hold themselves responsible for the repercussions of their own actions? Does it cheapen the message of a strong political statement if at the end the person says "Don't be upset with me with what I say!"?
:applaud:
[EDIT: ASIDE: There was a post between this one and Lost Ashes'. Why was it deleted?]
posted
Heck, even I agree with that. So, don't invite him to your Super Bowl party. But when he comes in for a burger, sell it to him. Sheesh.
Scott, should I be able to keep blacks and gays out of my store because I don't like them? It's a bit different than no shirt.
And there are reasons why a "pet" should be allowed in a store. You may not like it, but we've all agreed to certain things. Like no shoes, no shirt, no service.
I just don't think "no democrats allowed" is one of the things we've agreed to. Yet.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neo Con- Click on US Interesting. Not sure I’ve been called a neo con before. Had to look that one up. And here everyone said it was me who did the name calling. I don’t know. There are parts of the definition I agree with and parts I disagree with.
I’m not saying they are to be silenced. But it would be nice if everyone that was offended would do like Scott says. I’d be scared to be their neighbors right now. I figure there is great risk for something violent to happen to their house or person. I don’t condone that in the least, just saying it’s a great possibility that it will happen.
We could get into the whole flag burning debate here since it’s almost similar. We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
All I meant by what I said is I would be upset if I were discriminated against by my community for expressing my opinions.
It may have been in poor taste, but it was this person's opinion and I have a hard time understanding why they only have the options of staying silent, watering down their beliefs or risking alienation for saying what they believe the way they want to say it.
It seems like a way to censor people to me; "Don't upset us or we'll make you pay."
But I'm not going to say anymore. I'm not too comfortable speaking my mind on anything related to politics around here let alone trying to argue something I see as unbelievably wrong.
Posts: 378 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pro-life but am offended by the full color posters of a bloody, aborted fetus that some pro-lifers use to get their point across. I think people who display phaphic protests would be rather disappointed if no one were offended.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are defending the practice of discrimination.
But Kayla, aren't you defending a person that practices discrimination by defending this guy?
BTW, I don't mean any of this as an attack. I mean only to strengthen or weaken my view based on your responses .
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm mistaken but my take on this was as an indictment of our government and it's policy. I saw the effigy as a statement that our government was using our dollars to send our children to be killed. Am I just misinterpreting the message? Does anyone think that the message was one of hate directed at our troops?
posted
I don't know, it also could be seen as saying the troops should be hung because they are criminals of some sort and our taxes are going to support their criminal activites.
Also, advocating the violent overthrow of the government is apparently illegal.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Arrested for what? Exercising their constitutional rights? On what grounds, for heaven's sake?
Ironically enough, I'm currently watching the Simpsons episode where Bart accidentally moons the flag.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the more clear way to get across what punwit expressed would be a coffin with a flag draped over it labelled "our tax dollars at work". The noose definitely implies guilt on the part of the wearer of the uniform.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I suppose one could assign that message but it certainly didn't jump out at me at first blush. I guess I don't have the requisite cynicism to assign that type of dastardly intent.
posted
But who is doing the lynching? It's just all around a poorly constructed piece of propaganda. Unless you want to call it installation art. Then it is surprisingly lucid.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think punwit said it best, in that the statement was about the government sending soldiers off to be killed. So if someone or something must be responsible for a lynching, it'd be the government.
However, when I mentioned lynching, it was strictly to point out that a noose creates the idea of a lynching in my mind and does not make me think of the party in the noose as being guilty of a crime, as you suggested it "definitely" means. Instead a noose reminds me of the many innocent people who have died in that manner to appease others, namely African Americans in the South. That is the parallel I drew.
posted
Well, I am more inclined to think of the treatment of Vietnam vets, which people are bolder and bolder in declaring this war as being like.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could get into the whole flag burning debate here since it’s almost similar. We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Apparantly Kayla was right about your lack of commitment to free speech.
quote: We have the right to, but I think that anyone who does should be arrested.
Then you are a neo-con, and that isn't meant as a compliment.
Arrested for what....disagreeing with the government?
If they have the right to do something then how can they be arrested for it?
Perhaps you should look up "rights", as your statement doesn't make any sense.
For the record, I am offended by the display, and would make sure they knew it. I wouldn't refuse to serve them, but I would have no problem with making sure they knew they were not welcome.
And that would be me using my right of free speech in answer to them using theirs. If they have a right to do that I have the right to express my distaste of it, within reason.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
