*samfisher is waiting for photographic evidence of africans on Sanlitun Lu during the Sinolympics. Here's a great story/blog abou the 2007 raid on Sanlitun:
What's there to discuss? ROFL. I don't give a flying ass about your girly fight with MFW. You two can get into a room and get as kinky as what you want for all I care. I am furious because someone here have no idea what freedom of speech actually means. And that ignorant person is you. Here is then proof why I said that: Please elaborate on what you said there. I will have a lot to reply.
Indeed I don't pretend to understand "freedom of speech." If the Germans would like to justify/interpret an absolute, it is their country, it is their right. But don't make a mockery of themselves by implying their constitution said otherwise. Now of course if they had left themselves an out... that would be a total different matter. People of normal intelligence 1 -- You 0 Now that is a strawman Sammy. Nobody here is denying that Chinese police conducts drug busts. But why change the topic mid-thread? Wasn't your moronic allegation that China bans blacks and Mongolians from bars instead of alleged police brutality? Oh that's right, because you've got caught with your pants down in a lie and had to change topics.
And speaking of evidence Sammy, like I said, when you make the allegation, the onus is upon you to provide it. Are you sure you are a lawyer? Surely I don't have to remind a lawyer such simple concepts. If you happen to be one, I pity your clients.
With a heavy heart, I've got to say that I sort of support the ban on blacks in Sanlitun, if, and ONLY if, it is the only way to avoid brutal PSB attacks and beatings on blacks that have occurred in the last year. ZOMBIE DANCE! <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tiJa8PgHi-g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tiJa8PgHi-g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I already elaborated on it. You chose not to quote the elaboration. Do you understand the concept of at will employment? Why don't you go study up and then enlighten me buddy.
Is acting dumb your only talent? You have made this bogus claim about freedom of speech in the private sector. I can give you example after example that freedom of speech is the key issue in the court. Here is one: "Wigglesorth v. Teamsters. Plaintiff brought action against Teamsters claiming they had violated his freedom of speech on two occasions. At the press conference, P called them Mafia-run and the like. Teamsters attempted to assert a counterclaim of defamation and malicious prosecution..." I find it absolutely hilarious that you tried to lecture other people on the concept of freedom of speech when you had no idea what it is.
^LMFAO - this is like grading a first year law student's exam at a fourth tier law school....in Jamaica. I can't even begin to indicate how incredibly out of your depth you are. You trying to teach first amendment law to me is like me giving you a seminar on how to be a good netizen and behave in accordance with national unity - in other words you are WAY out of your league kiddo.
LMAO X 2. What about your posts? What I saw is someone who couldn't even get out of a fifth tier law school. Otherwise, why can't you respond with facts to debunk my post? You said: I said it's nonsense. Why? Because: If you still think the silly assertion that "The right to freedom of speech has nothing to do with private business" is correct. Why don't you explain? Are you capable? Or you just can't? Just throwing out mindless insults to respond to facts won't carry you too far.
Dude - you're trying to make an argument about constitutional law by googling some first year law student's Civ Pro outline and citing a case summary about a case that, as far as I can tell, has something to do with compulsory counterclaims - that's actually true, and I can't belive I'm typing it. If you knew what I actually said up there - you'd be laughing at yourself too. Sorry Perry Mason, but you 've got to do a bit more than read a 1L CIV PRO outline to get before the supreme court I will be very very very brief and give you a 10,000 meter overview in the interest of spreading democracy to Chinetizens: USConst Amdt 1 guarantees freedom of speech from government interference. However it is not absolute and not all speech is afforded the same level of constitutional protection. Political speech is enabled the highest level of protection. Commercial speech is afforded a much lower level of protection. At the bottom of the scale is obscenity, hate speech, fighting words etc which get little to no form of constitutional protection. So that's that. You're welcome.
You are correct there. I concede. But you are still moronic to keep calling mindless names. Unless you don't believe in yourself that you are able to win a debate without getting low like that.
It's obvious I was talking about the bogus news on SCMP that they would ban black men in the Beijing bars during the 2008 Olympics. Why do you keep changing the topic to 2007 Sanlitun?
I'd say what happened in Germany may not break the law of "free speech". However, if you talked in public that "sb. is not so bad as you think", or "actually they didn't do sth. bad like you said" in Germany, you could be fired by your employer and suppressed by some major media. Fantastic! If the major media say sb. is really a bad guy, everybody have to follow, different opinions are not preferred, even to be suppressed. otherwise you'll suffered the risk to be fired or will not allowed to speak any more through most media. Would you tell me where can I see the point of "free speech" or "freedom" here? You can feel "free" just because being fired is not breaking the law? You have many way to suppress sb. have different opinion against you, without breaking the law. That's a real genius.
