I didn't try to rewrite anything. It's there in your definitions exactly what I said. I put it in bold for you. Again both examples you gave were examples of person being held accountable for the consequences of their speech, not of banned speech. This is not my opinion, it known law. Talk to a lawyer.
So, if you are to be logically consistent, you would be opposed to forcing someone who is pro-choice to bring a fetus to term because doing so would be forcing the pro-life morals on another person.
Yes, if someone yells "FIRE" in a theater or defames another by lying in public to the point of causing damage to that person, the speech should be banned.
Sen. Wagle probably realized that there was no way this will get through the courts. As I noted earlier this law would run smack into the Civil Rights Act. I'm guessing if the TN law passes it will face the same situation. In a related case Muslim cab drivers in MN were refusing to carry passengers who had alcohol from the airport because they said it went against their beliefs. The MN court of Appeals ruled against that and upheld the Minnesota Airports Commission right to fine and / or suspend cabbies licenses. Although this is MN and not IN it shows that courts have already looked at this issue before. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/09/09/muslim_cabs_court
Let's review. You said this to which I countered with several examples of laws that prohibit action that does not violate another's rights. *crickets* Then you said this... Laws are based on society's morality. I said slander was illegal to which you replied. To which I defined the word ban for you since you don't seem to know what it meant. Banned = illegal. Then you tried to explain to me that slander is only illegal if damages are caused which is the DEFINITION of slander. To which you previously said... I can only lead you out of the rabbit hole. At some point you have to decide to come out and join us.
which one would you like me to address? I will explain for the 3rd time since you are not getting it. The examples you gave are punishing people for the consequences of their speech. Not the speech. The speech alone is not what is illegal, it is the consequences. I can go in public and claim 'CometWin wore a red shirt today' even though I know you wore a blue shirt. It will not be a crime. There are examples in America of banned speech but you did not list them.
Yes, I'm not getting it. Lol Slander is illegal ergo banned. There's no confusion about that with anyone but you. You're trying to tell me it's not slander unless it's slander. Great...
Hate to bump this thread so late (been kinda busy)... ...just wanted to say a couple things real quick (for me, anyway)... Jedi Master of Sarcasm I am not. May have seemed like it in my spiel before, but this is precisely the great failing of "separate but equal" in my opinion. I get your point, rocketsjudoka. Our society is a capitalist society. We all follow the money, because all the money has the same value (relatively) despite the pockets it resides in. That's always been true. Economics has always been a way to "highlight" the differences between "races" (or any other group you want to marginalize) in this country. Those differences being largely proffered as a "moral" or "intellectual" superiority or inferiority. Not a terribly original dynamic. This type of thing's gone on before (though not with quite the same fervor or animus), but with the communication and technology of our present day, the "income inequality" dialog does seem hyperbolic. Being "relatively successful", as you put it, in a culturally, econmically and legislatively segregated society does two things counter to the intuition that spawned it: highlights that, provided a relatively balanced and fair opportunity, any individual can make himself a productive member of society more often than not more importantly, morality does not subscribe itself to who has the most money The largely libertarian thinking on this has been that, if people would see how much money it was costing them to be intolerant, the economics would be enough to at least foster the atmosphere of cooperation and co-dependence, since "black dollars" or "white dollars", as euphemisms at least, would become obsolete. No one would have to "force" anybody to not discriminate in the public commerce sector, at least, because it just wouldn't make good business sense. We would all eventually see that what binds us are largely the bigger and smaller economic realities of our nation. And that's where the argument falls apart, to me. We are not bound by the economics of our society. We're bound by the ethics and morals of our society. Capital does not create or embellish morality. Capital can only supplement morality, if that. I had to decide to be a decent person long before I'd see any money for it. Had no choice as a black man. I was born with two strikes against me and the third strike on the way to the plate with a crooked umpire and a spitball-throwing pitcher to contend with. Like you said about the 5th Ward, the money left and the neighborhood didn't recover as well. That's been parlayed for many years as evidence of black people being "inferior" or wanton or callous. All over the nation, actually. There've been a few posters here who're on record saying that keeping "n!99ers" out of their neighborhoods was standard operating procedure. As long as the thinking is that money is the delimiter of morality, we'll be at this impasse of what we're responsible for, and who we're responsible to. We didn't separate religion from the state to make it harder to know what's right and what's wrong to do, in my opinion. Certainly not to have a particular religious canonical position to hide behind in civil policy. We either care about people enough to treat them with respect and dignity (especially the ones we disagree with over largely minor things) or we admit in the light of day that we don't care, and explain that position to everybody else without it being because it costs too much or there's not enough to go around or some other cowardly reason. I've always preferred, in my own personal dealings, honest devils to lying angels. I figure I can tell the difference, all things being equal...
The gay issue and black civil rights issue are poles apart...and I think that it is offensive for those pumping up the gay agenda to use the black civil rights movement as a tool to garner sympathy for their cause. Disgusting.
Both deal with the fight against the disenfranchisement of people for who they are. Just because you find YOURSELF on the side of of disenfranchising one of these groups doesn't mean both do not draw parallels. You are saying this to make yourself feel better. In other words, You obviously believe that the fight for black civil rights was justified and you would like to think that if you lived during those times you would be on the right side. Yet today a similar situation is happening and you find yourself on the side that is disenfranchising a certain group of people and you feel as if you need to justify yourself.
You might want to elaborate on why you think they're poles apart before reminding everyone that you're a bigot with your agenda. The reality is whether it's a relevant comparison or not don't matter at all. This is America. There are no other ways to get the message across without comparing it to Civil Rights. You think anyone would give a **** if they tried to relate it to Women's Suffrage? Heh.
Dude...seriously...stop. You are embarrassing yourself at this point. There are many instances where it is permissible to restrict speech. In addition to inciteful speech and slander, there are time, place and manner restrictions that are applicable. The government can, and has, made it illegal to go on the public airwaves and use the seven dirty words. What you are arguing isn't even close to what the law is.
I posted this in the Michael Sam NFL thread but it bears repeating. Charles Barkley: "I think it is important as a black man to always be inclusive." <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pSRiXzo3mzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Systematic, structural discrimination directed at black people is unlike systematic, structural discrimination directed at gay people in what way?
Spare me your drama. This board is ridiculous. The picture I used was taken from the Nashville sit ins. The date I posted the picture was the 54th anniversary of the date that they started. I figured it would be fitting. They are different, yet very similar, issues in a different era but the core problem is the same. It also may not be anywhere near the same magnitude or importance as the battle for racial equality but it is similar. Civil rights are civil rights. The "gay agenda" is equality. I will never understand why people think they have the right to concern themselves with the sex lives and love lives of strangers.
Meanwhile in Arizona http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/breaking_az_senate_passes_right_to_discriminate_bi.php BREAKING: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill This afternoon, on a party-line 17-13 vote, Republicans in the Arizona Senate bucked the national trend and gave final approval to SB 1062, a GOP-led bill that would create a special "right" to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of religion. Under the bill, which was introduced by Republican State Senator Steve Yarbrough, individuals and businesses would be granted the legal right to refuse services to people or groups if they claimed that doing so would "substantially burden" their freedom of religion. In interviews with local media, Yarbrough made it perfectly clear that the specific purpose of this bill is to legitimize discrimination against the LGBT community. But during today's nearly two-hour-long debate, Yarbrough took a different tack, claiming that the basic rights of LGBT people victimize anti-LGBT Christians. "This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith." Arizona Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar condemned the legislation in a statement released shortly after the vote. It's after the jump. "SB 1062 permits discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. "Legislation of this kind has been attempted this year in Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee and Idaho. Each of those attempts failed after prominent members of the business community spoke against the measures. While our state continues to recover from the public relations nightmare of SB 1070, the Republican supporters of this bill are willing to elicit the inevitable backlash and boycotts that will result from its passage. "Arizona does not need this bill, Arizonans do not want this bill and there is no place for this bill in our modern society. We have come too far to turn back the clock with such a disgraceful assault on members of our community based on their sexual orientation." The language in Yarbrough's bill is so broad that it could also potentially allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against other protected groups, including unmarried women and non-Christians. A companion bill is pending before the Arizona House and could come up for a vote anytime. It reportedly stands a good chance of passing. Stay tuned, folks: Arizona may soon legalize anti-LGBT discrimination. "Because Jesus" could literally become a valid excuse for refusing service to queers in the Grand Canyon State.
So, this is the new frontier? Social conservatives recognize that they've lost the gay marriage fight, but can't help themselves from going after homosexuals. What an age we live in.
