I am well familiar with the golden rule. It's not been that long since university philosophy. The golden rule implies altruism, and a trust of others. The Paine quote is all about self preservation.
rdx-fx wrote:
The whole point of my explanation (what you consider a "rant") was that even though something is technically legal, does not make it ethical, moral, or tasteful.
1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures. A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures. And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.
Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
I agree.
rdx-fx wrote:
Actually, no we don't have to "protect the right of any crazy asshole to say whatever he wants".
Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater isn't protected speech, threatening another person isn't protected, spreading Top Secret government information is not protected, child porn is not protected, etc..
1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures. A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures. And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.
Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
And, putting Dr. King on equal footing with someone who posted (for lack of a better term) "death-porn" on the internet?
Are you serious?
One gave his life in the cause of equal treatment, fairness, and non-violent protest. The other posted photos of a gruesomely mutilated young woman on the internet for amusement.
Point one: posting pics from an accident scene (that are available through legal means) fails the
Brandenburg Test for the restriction of Free Speech.
As long as what you're saying doesn't violate all three tenets of this test, I will defend your right to say it. I likely won't condone it. I will defend it.
Point two: Yep, I am. In 1959, not a white man in Alabama, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Arkansas, wanted to hear a thing that Dr. King wanted to say. They wanted him shut up. He was "stirring up the coloreds." His speech was considered just as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater. And those who were there beside him stood up with him and defended his right to say it, in the face of fire hoses, police dogs, teargas, and everything else. They were LITERALLY throwing stones at this man because of what he had to say.
We agree with it now. We did NOT agree with it then. How quickly times change. But I'm not a fan of revisionist history that seeks to portray the actions of white america as honorable and just toward Dr. King. He advocated change for which white america wasn't ready.
Now, I don't agree with the actions of this asshat that posted the pics on the internet. I likely will NEVER agree with his actions. But does that make them any less worth protecting? The answer cannot be no. Too much is at stake. What happens when the next Dr. King comes along? When he has unpopular things to say?
Point three: Dr. King didn't give up his life. His life was callously taken from him. He didn't sacrifice himself. He was gunned down in cold blood. Sorry, I'm a stickler for nuance. It's the difference between conscious choice (the fireman gave his life by running into the burning building to save the last two kids) and actions by others.
rdx-fx wrote:
Without specifics?
hmm.. then I must've just dreamed up the part in the OP where it says "Reich and co-defendant Thomas O'Donnell, who reportedly still works as a CHP dispatcher, cite in court papers their First Amendment rights to free speech in being responsible for the worldwide distribution of the photos through cyberspace."
, or the link in the article that says
"The CHP would not talk on camera but says one of its workers released the pictures. The CHP released the following statement to CBS13.
"The investigation has concluded that there was an unauthorized release of the photos taken.""
My point is that you're making a whole lot of assumptions based on a few lines in TWO web articles. And you know what they say about assumptions.
rdx-fx wrote:
Man, I'm an Army veteran. Don't try and play the "they have a hard job, they don't get paid enough, you wouldn't understand" card.
I understand venting at stupidity. I understand wanting to just scream at the senseless waste of life that happens - and that most of the population will never open their eyes to see.
A little anonymous venting about "some stupid girl" might be okay - posting pictures of her (identifiable?) mutilated corpse on the internet crosses a moral and ethical line.
It might be moral and ethical, if it were to bring attention to something important (drunk driving, genocide, drug use, whatever) - but NOT strictly for amusement.
Again, I agree. But you are assuming (there's that assumption word again) that the police were responsible for the internet posting.
You know how viral the internet is. I send you an email. You send it to 5 friends. They send it to 5 friends each. One of those dudes, who I likely don't even know, takes the pics from the email and places them on a website.
Not to mention, we don't know why the images were originally forwarded. They very well could be part of a VERY graphic portrayal of speed kills.
rdx-fx wrote:
Did I mention them by name? NO
Did I say they HAD PTSD or sociopathic disorders? NO - "suggest them for psychological evaluation" was the phrase I used. Let a professional decide.
Did I say anything about denying them "due process"? no
Now, who's trying to get a job with Dan Rather or Fox News now?
Point: the presumption of guilt is by itself a denial of due process.
Point: If you print an editorial in a newspaper attacking the person on the front page, you can be sued for libel regardless of whether you mention that person's name directly. If it's obvious who you're referencing (and let's not split hairs here, it's obvious), then you're responsible.
Point: When you summarily fire someone for an action committed for which you have no indication of motive, and which apparently didn't violate your agency's written policies, you are abridging due process. See the first point above.
rdx-fx wrote:
blisteringsilence wrote:
The freedom to say what you want is precious. It's so precious that we need to be sure what we're saying is really, really important to us if it's going to piss a lot of people off. It should be cherished and protected by all. Especially when it's really unpopular.
My point exactly.
Use it wisely, not to post "snuff-smut" on the internet.
I agree.
