Bea Hall was a cold hard bitch.Dilbert_X wrote:
Everyone forgets the second half:dark110 wrote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
"However good luck saying anything after I've cut you tongue out, lightly fried it, sliced it thinly and fed it to my cat."
Especially when people hide under the free speech umbrella in order to harass someone.Ty wrote:
That quote is grossly abused.dark110 wrote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Kmar wrote:
[
There are limits set on free speech. You can have a restraining order placed on them. If their goal is to inflict emotional distress against someone who is grieving at a funeral you better believe that is harassment. In some instances verbal assault can land the attacker a charge of hate crime. The punishments associated with such a crime are serious. Personally, I will not defend anyone's right to verbally abuse someone who is in the weakest condition imaginable, at a funeral.
Well, thank god we don't live in a democracy.FEOS wrote:
Apparently, only us, the majority of Americans, and Justice Alito are in agreement.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-04 07:01:38)
Then you're cool with 'anti-bullying' laws too?lowing wrote:
Free Speech is protected, however, freedom to harass is not. and this is nothing more than harassment, and I would go as far to redefine assault to include such action as this so prison sentences could be sought. Sexual harassment is not free speech and is a punishable crime. My opinion on this is not that far fetched.
Yes I am. What gives a person the "right" to verbally abuse another for the sake of harassment?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then you're cool with 'anti-bullying' laws too?lowing wrote:
Free Speech is protected, however, freedom to harass is not. and this is nothing more than harassment, and I would go as far to redefine assault to include such action as this so prison sentences could be sought. Sexual harassment is not free speech and is a punishable crime. My opinion on this is not that far fetched.
yesJohnG@lt wrote:
Then you're cool with 'anti-bullying' laws too?lowing wrote:
Free Speech is protected, however, freedom to harass is not. and this is nothing more than harassment, and I would go as far to redefine assault to include such action as this so prison sentences could be sought. Sexual harassment is not free speech and is a punishable crime. My opinion on this is not that far fetched.
Ok, define bullying then.lowing wrote:
Yes I am. What gives a person the "right" to verbally abuse another for the sake of harassment?JohnG@lt wrote:
Then you're cool with 'anti-bullying' laws too?lowing wrote:
Free Speech is protected, however, freedom to harass is not. and this is nothing more than harassment, and I would go as far to redefine assault to include such action as this so prison sentences could be sought. Sexual harassment is not free speech and is a punishable crime. My opinion on this is not that far fetched.
If you go out of your way for the explicit purpose of harassing another person for the sole intent of intimidation to achieve a desired result. That is bullying, harassing etc. Sexual harassment is no different than anything else we are talking about. It is verbal abuse, and it is illegal.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I show you up on a football field and make you feel bad about yourself, does that not fall under your definition of bullying?
If I brag about how well I did on a test and make fun of you for doing poorly, is that not a form of bullying?
Don't you dare talk about how successful you are, or how much money you make. You're just bullying the weak and incompetent.
And I'm saying the definition is way too broad and just about any negative social interaction between two people can be classified as bullying. You can't force people to be nice to each other via legislation. The very idea is ludicrous.lowing wrote:
If you go out of your way for the explicit purpose of harassing another person for the sole intent of intimidation to achieve a desired result. That is bullying, harassing etc. Sexual harassment is no different than anything else we are talking about. It is verbal abuse, and it is illegal.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I show you up on a football field and make you feel bad about yourself, does that not fall under your definition of bullying?
If I brag about how well I did on a test and make fun of you for doing poorly, is that not a form of bullying?
Don't you dare talk about how successful you are, or how much money you make. You're just bullying the weak and incompetent.
Not talking about being nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I'm saying the definition is way too broad and just about any negative social interaction between two people can be classified as bullying. You can't force people to be nice to each other via legislation. The very idea is ludicrous.lowing wrote:
If you go out of your way for the explicit purpose of harassing another person for the sole intent of intimidation to achieve a desired result. That is bullying, harassing etc. Sexual harassment is no different than anything else we are talking about. It is verbal abuse, and it is illegal.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I show you up on a football field and make you feel bad about yourself, does that not fall under your definition of bullying?
If I brag about how well I did on a test and make fun of you for doing poorly, is that not a form of bullying?
Don't you dare talk about how successful you are, or how much money you make. You're just bullying the weak and incompetent.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-04 08:17:04)
It's quite different. Firstly, they need a permit in order to protest. Secondly, they're usually well away from the funeral and the procession. They protest outside of the cemetery, not next to the grave. And lastly, what you are proposing is a slippery slope that would eventually lead to people trying to outlaw everything they find noxious. On a long enough time line nothing would be left. Zero deviation from the prescribed opinions.lowing wrote:
Not talking about being nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I'm saying the definition is way too broad and just about any negative social interaction between two people can be classified as bullying. You can't force people to be nice to each other via legislation. The very idea is ludicrous.lowing wrote:
If you go out of your way for the explicit purpose of harassing another person for the sole intent of intimidation to achieve a desired result. That is bullying, harassing etc. Sexual harassment is no different than anything else we are talking about. It is verbal abuse, and it is illegal.
You are not sexually harassing by asking someone to go out with you, however repeated and unwanted approaches can land you in jail. Why is this any different?
There is no slippery slope. You simply have no right to verbally abuse another person. Let the courts decide. If it turns into a frivolous lawsuit ordeal, that is fine as well. Simply make a law where the loser of any lawsuit pays for both.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's quite different. Firstly, they need a permit in order to protest. Secondly, they're usually well away from the funeral and the procession. They protest outside of the cemetery, not next to the grave. And lastly, what you are proposing is a slippery slope that would eventually lead to people trying to outlaw everything they find noxious. On a long enough time line nothing would be left. Zero deviation from the prescribed opinions.lowing wrote:
Not talking about being nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I'm saying the definition is way too broad and just about any negative social interaction between two people can be classified as bullying. You can't force people to be nice to each other via legislation. The very idea is ludicrous.
You are not sexually harassing by asking someone to go out with you, however repeated and unwanted approaches can land you in jail. Why is this any different?
If they want to call soldiers fags so be it. It doesn't bother me. Why? Because I realize they're morons, they're wrong, and their opinion doesn't man a goddamned thing to me. I simply find their attempt to piss people off so they can guilt them into going to church more often is hilarious. It's so backwards and against their own church's teachings that... man. There are some wacky people in the world.
Nope. It is 100% subjective.Trotskygrad wrote:
to be honest, I agree with lowing...
there is a difference between harassment (which probably has it's own legal definition) and a negative social interaction
Go burn a cross on your front lawn and then make that argument when you get charged with a hate crime.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's quite different. Firstly, they need a permit in order to protest. Secondly, they're usually well away from the funeral and the procession. They protest outside of the cemetery, not next to the grave. And lastly, what you are proposing is a slippery slope that would eventually lead to people trying to outlaw everything they find noxious. On a long enough time line nothing would be left. Zero deviation from the prescribed opinions.lowing wrote:
Not talking about being nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I'm saying the definition is way too broad and just about any negative social interaction between two people can be classified as bullying. You can't force people to be nice to each other via legislation. The very idea is ludicrous.
You are not sexually harassing by asking someone to go out with you, however repeated and unwanted approaches can land you in jail. Why is this any different?
If they want to call soldiers fags so be it. It doesn't bother me. Why? Because I realize they're morons, they're wrong, and their opinion doesn't man a goddamned thing to me. I simply find their attempt to piss people off so they can guilt them into going to church more often is hilarious. It's so backwards and against their own church's teachings that... man. There are some wacky people in the world.
Hate crime laws are odious.FEOS wrote:
Go burn a cross on your front lawn and then make that argument when you get charged with a hate crime.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's quite different. Firstly, they need a permit in order to protest. Secondly, they're usually well away from the funeral and the procession. They protest outside of the cemetery, not next to the grave. And lastly, what you are proposing is a slippery slope that would eventually lead to people trying to outlaw everything they find noxious. On a long enough time line nothing would be left. Zero deviation from the prescribed opinions.lowing wrote:
Not talking about being nice.
You are not sexually harassing by asking someone to go out with you, however repeated and unwanted approaches can land you in jail. Why is this any different?
If they want to call soldiers fags so be it. It doesn't bother me. Why? Because I realize they're morons, they're wrong, and their opinion doesn't man a goddamned thing to me. I simply find their attempt to piss people off so they can guilt them into going to church more often is hilarious. It's so backwards and against their own church's teachings that... man. There are some wacky people in the world.
Nope.Shahter wrote:
burning a cross on ones own front lawn would be a crime in usa? are there sarcasm tags in that post i'm not seeing?
Irrelevant. Hence the inconsistency in the ruling and the rightness of Alito's position.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hate crime laws are odious.FEOS wrote:
Go burn a cross on your front lawn and then make that argument when you get charged with a hate crime.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's quite different. Firstly, they need a permit in order to protest. Secondly, they're usually well away from the funeral and the procession. They protest outside of the cemetery, not next to the grave. And lastly, what you are proposing is a slippery slope that would eventually lead to people trying to outlaw everything they find noxious. On a long enough time line nothing would be left. Zero deviation from the prescribed opinions.
If they want to call soldiers fags so be it. It doesn't bother me. Why? Because I realize they're morons, they're wrong, and their opinion doesn't man a goddamned thing to me. I simply find their attempt to piss people off so they can guilt them into going to church more often is hilarious. It's so backwards and against their own church's teachings that... man. There are some wacky people in the world.
No, it's considered racist against black people. The KKK used to (probably still does in certain areas) burn wooden crosses, in the early 20th and late 19th centuries they would burn the black people on them, or hang them, or both.Shahter wrote:
burning a cross on ones own front lawn would be a crime in usa? are there sarcasm tags in that post i'm not seeing?
Absolutely not. Hate crime laws are unconstitutional (or should be).FEOS wrote:
Irrelevant. Hence the inconsistency in the ruling and the rightness of Alito's position.JohnG@lt wrote:
Hate crime laws are odious.FEOS wrote:
Go burn a cross on your front lawn and then make that argument when you get charged with a hate crime.