Oh I forgot you built your own Septic system
Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
by darth frosty 553 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Qcmbr
That's not my point - I'm all for freedom of speech but I also recognise freedom to hear. Let's look at it another way. Porn. I quite like it but I get really annoyed when I see it on magazine covers in public view because it removes the right to avoid it. I would like to see a law making all magazines with porn content and cover material enclosed in an opaque wrapper and given an age rating. This would not restrict its consumption but would allow people who would for whatever reason wish to avoid it the opportunity to. Similar with freedom of speech. Write what you want, create whatever video you want, go to a 'speakers corner' and stand on a soapbox, apply for a permit to stand outside a political gathering with a banner - all fine. What is not fine is to go picket a funeral, to walk down a high street with anti - gay banners, to stand outside a JW convention and hand out anti-JW fliers, to go door to door and argue with them about religion, to stand outside medical facilities and show images of abortions etc..
-
rather be in hades
freedom of speech protects speech we don't like, not speech we do like
-
King Solomon
From a random blog:
Here’s a key excerpt from Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion:
We have identified a few limited situations where the location of targeted picketing can be regulated under provisions that the Court has determined to be content neutral. In Frisby, for example, we upheld a ban on such picketing “before or about” a particular residence, 487 U. S., at 477. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., we approved an injunction requiring a buffer zone between protesters and an abortion clinic entrance. 512 U. S. 753, 768 (1994). The facts here are obviously quite different, both with respect to the activity being regulated and the means of restricting those activities.
Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence.
Indeed, the activity was so quiet that, according to the summary of facts at the outset of the opinion, “Matthew Snyder’s father (Snyder), petitioner here, saw the tops of the picketers’ signs when driving to the funeral, but did not learn what was written on the signs until watching a news broadcast later that night.”
As Roberts and seven of his colleagues rightly concluded, the only reason any of us find what the Westboro clowns do objectionable in the least is that we find the content of their speech loathesome. That is not sufficient grounds for banning it or imposing restrictions on it so burdensome that they can’t get publicity for it. The fact of the matter is that the only reason we know of these people is because they engage in this particular activity.
And in accord with some people's wishes, note how the article talks about how Congress is trying to pass a law banning protests at military funerals that is likely only to be struck down as unconstitutional.
As much as we wish it were so, the gov't cannot protect us from anything and everything that personally offends us. Much like trolls, the answer is simply to ignore their behavior, and they eventually disappear. If everyone quit being outraged by WBC, they'd disappear from everyone's consciousness, and they'd not make the news. Media is trolling by knowing what makes people outraged: trolls.
-
botchtowersociety
QCMBR, your on the example on the previous page used private property. With WBC, we are talking about public areas. Your example against does not apply.
However, let's not argue about point #9. I notice your answer to BizzyBee is ignored by her. I'd love to hear her response to your thoughts in her own words.
-
botchtowersociety
I'd also like to hear someone other than myself address the fact that Mother Jones lied about releasing the full video, and is witholding the very immediate context to the Romney comments that they used to try to ignite a firestorm.
-
bluesaph
Oh BOOO HOOOO! You have absolutely NO credibility when it comes to demanding "context". NONE!
Remember: "You didn't build that"????
-
botchtowersociety
Go check James Woods' thread on the subject, Bluesaph. He provided FULL CONTEXT. We discussed it in CONTEXT.
So I guess all the Obama supporters here refuse to address the issue I raised, other than engaging in false tu quoque arguments.
That tells me all I needed to hear.
-
BizzyBee
The missing content:
"But I always keep open: the idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world. We have done that time and time and time again. It does not work. So the only answer is show them strength. American strength, American resolve, and the Palestinians will some day reach the point where they want peace more than we’re trying to force peace on them. Then it’s worth having the discussion. So until then, it’s just wistful thinking."
-
botchtowersociety
You appear to be on the wrong thread, BizzyBee.
Your text has nothing to do with the gap in the Romney video. Your quote is there in the video.
It seems to have to do with my response to you on a different thread.
Here, let me point you in the right direction.
http://jehovahs-witness.net/members/politics/236682/5/The-Implosion-of-Mitt-Romneys-Candidacy-Part-I