Hannity and Combs finally agree on something - Christian Loonies.

I love Impulses · 10-06-2006, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26bps

My point is that once you restrict speech because someone finds it "offensive", it can no longer be called "free". You do not have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

The grey area is between harassment and simple "offensiveness".

The FCC's legal existence does not mean that what they do is in accordance with the principle of free speech.

Free speech realistically came about from Berkeley in the 1960's as we know it today.

agentdowell · 10-06-2006, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26bps

My point is that once you restrict speech because someone finds it "offensive", it can no longer be called "free". You do not have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

The grey area is between harassment and simple "offensiveness".

The FCC's legal existence does not mean that what they do is in accordance with the principle of free speech.

No... this has already happened. The reason words like 'slander', 'libel' and 'profanity' exist is because the Supreme Court already decided the limits of what is considered 'free' speech.

Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968) and the term 'imminent lawless action' for a clearer definition of what kind of action is unprotected under the First A.

I believe the action of these loons clearly incites 'ila' as defined by the Supreme Court, an institution many of you clearly know nothing about.

26bps · 10-06-2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agentdowell

the Supreme Court already decided the limits of what is considered 'free' speech.

And that is my point. The FCC would not exist if the Supreme Court decided to enforce actual free speech. And even if we did exclude "profanity" from the definition of free speech, you and I both know that the only reason this group would be criminalized is because they fly in the face of what the majority believes. It has nothing to do with profanity. They simply passionately disagree with what the majority thinks. Everyone is passionate about something to the point that someone else is offended. This is why drawing the line between harassment and offensiveness is so important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agentdowell

the Supreme Court, an institution many of you clearly know nothing about.

I'll just assume I don't have to explain Dred Scott to you. The notion of this country ignoring the ideas it was founded upon is nothing new. I am not arguing about legality because the constitution will always say whatever the vast majority wants it to say. I am talking about free speech and only free speech. Not as it is defined by a bunch of codgers.

agentdowell · 10-06-2006, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 26bps

And that is my point. The FCC would not exist if the Supreme Court decided to enforce actual free speech. And even if we did exclude "profanity" from the definition of free speech, you and I both know that the only reason this group would be criminalized is because they fly in the face of what the majority believes. It has nothing to do with profanity. They simply passionately disagree with what the majority thinks. Everyone is passionate about something to the point that someone else is offended. This is why drawing the line between harassment and offensiveness is so important.

You clearly conducted no research on what I told you to. 'Incites imminent lawless action', not 'profanity', look it up. This is common sense that even a braniac like you could understand.

Quote:

I'll just assume I don't have to explain Dred Scott to you. The notion of this country ignoring the ideas it was founded upon is nothing new. I am not arguing about legality because the constitution will always say whatever the vast majority wants it to say. I am talking about free speech and only free speech. Not as it is defined by a bunch of codgers.

Yeah, Dred Scott, that's a good point. Oh yeah, the CIVIL WAR. Why are you talking about an issue that has not only been SOLVED but also has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Speech?

26bps · 10-06-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agentdowell

You clearly conducted no research on what I told you to. 'Incites imminent lawless action', not 'profanity', look it up. This is common sense that even a braniac like you could understand.

Believe it or not, your arguments are not so brilliant that they force me to use wikipedia. So long as they file for permits and police are present, they can say whatever they want.

Way to adress absolutely none of my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agentdowell

Yeah, Dred Scott, that's a good point. Oh yeah, the CIVIL WAR. Why are you talking about an issue that has not only been SOLVED but also has NOTHING to do with Freedom of Speech?

I'll simplify things for you:

1) While slavery was resolved, blacks were not given equal rights until much later. Equal being the key term there.

2) Just because the supreme court finds something to be in accordance with a certain principle, in this case equality, does not mean that it is.

agentdowell · 10-06-2006, 04:21 AM

Ok, so what is your point? You think the SC is wrong? How should things really be? I think imminent lawless action is a pretty good basis.

sotexfury08 · 10-06-2006, 08:33 AM

So what is wrong with hannity and Combs?
I find it rather funny how yall are so pissed off at someone who is exercising his 1st ammd right and voicing his political agenda.
Dont like it, dont watch/listen to it.
Simple as that.

Idiots

Overbear · 10-06-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotexfury08

So what is wrong with hannity and Combs?
I find it rather funny how yall are so pissed off at someone who is exercising his 1st ammd right and voicing his political agenda.
Dont like it, dont watch/listen to it.
Simple as that.

Idiots

you don't read well do you kid.

Free speach and your first amendment rights end when you insite riot. That is exactly what phelps and his crew do.

MikeM · 10-06-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MurderDeathKill

They got shut down by The Man awhile ago... yes, they still meet together, but they can no longer demonstrate at funerals or anything like that. +1 for the government.

People like Fred Phelps and crew make me unreasonably angry. The reason being, they're so goddamn public with their bull**** that now I have to go around asserting that "not all Christians are like that." It should go without saying, but thanks Fred, now I have to say it. You *******.

I knew a guy who knew a guy that knew where Phelps lived. I asked if he'd slash Phelps' tires. He said he'd try. I don't know what came of that.

Actually I'd go further than asserting that "not all Christians are like that". The fact that Phelps calls his "church" Baptist does not in any way make him or his followers Christian.

Haga652001 · 10-06-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeM

Actually I'd go further than asserting that "not all Christians are like that". The fact that Phelps calls his "church" Baptist does not in any way make him or his followers Christian.

accually yes it does.

he proclaims to follow the teachings of God and Christ.

now wheather or not he is a good christian is a different story.

Swerve22 · 10-06-2006, 11:19 AM

We may not view him as a christian, but the rest of the world does. This is why it's important to speak out, loudly against these people so everybodies knows that they're not in the "in" crowd over here, which is why I'm glad wathing them get a few extra anuses torn open on Fox News.

MikeM · 10-06-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haga652001

accually yes it does.

he proclaims to follow the teachings of God and Christ.

now wheather or not he is a good christian is a different story.

Actually, it doesn't.
Calling yourself a Christian DOES NOT make you a Christian.
Claiming to follow Christ does not mean you do.
I could put on a police uniform and claim to be a policeman, but that wouldn't make me a policeman.
From what I can see, Phelps claims to be a Christian make him a liar and nothing more.