kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 31, 2012 14:13:48 GMT -5
Are the newsweek editors picking the photos to display on that website?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 31, 2012 14:33:17 GMT -5
If rude speech isn't protected than nothing really is...it is just a matter of time and cultural fashion. Truly shocking ramifications follow from the state's ability to arrest and charge citizens for rude speech which couldn't at all be deemed threatening. And on that note... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_TestThe standard in the UK targets not obscene speech but INSULTING speech...in an age when being insulted is the global national pastime. "Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person “is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”."
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 31, 2012 14:42:08 GMT -5
If rude speech isn't protected than nothing really is...it is just a matter of time and cultural fashion. Truly shocking ramifications follow from the state's ability to arrest and charge citizens for rude speech which couldn't at all be deemed threatening. And on that note... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_TestThe standard in the UK targets not obscene speech but INSULTING speech...in an age when being insulted is the global national pastime. "Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person “is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”." I agree that the UK laws are much worse, just pointing out that they're not the only nation which has a "moving goalpost" standard for protected speech. Obviously a big difference between not protecting obscene speech and not protecting "insulting" speech.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 31, 2012 15:04:29 GMT -5
Two points:
1. While it might boost support among social conservatives, I can't imagine anything worse for Romney's election chances than for him to make this a priority (which, of course, means that he'll do it).
2. As the National Review story I linked pointed out, perhaps the most dangerous part of the UK law is the phrase "likely to." I can't imagine a more vague standard than that. How in the hell is that determined?
As bad as Miller is, it doesn't even come close to that (in my non-legal opinion).
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 31, 2012 20:43:18 GMT -5
I find most of what Romney says to be obscene, so maybe he will lock himself up
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,394
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Aug 1, 2012 5:20:59 GMT -5
I find most of what Romney says to be obscene, so maybe he will lock himself up Good point, since he wants immigrants to self deport.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 1, 2012 8:11:23 GMT -5
"As the National Review story I linked pointed out, perhaps the most dangerous part of the UK law is the phrase "likely to."
I don't agree that's the worst part and I'll tell you why. If you say "likely" is problematic because interpretation will be impossible you have conceded that it should in fact be illegal to insult someone. Keep in mind there are millions of purely factual statements that others will indeed find insulting. Under that standard the statement "humans evolved from primates" will be found to be both insulting and likely to insult hundreds of millions of people. Should it be illegal to say that?
You absolutely SHOULD be able to and of course we all do regularly cause "insult" "alarm" and "distress" to our fellow citizens and even family and friends on a regular basis in a free society. That's just part of free discourse in the real world. Forget the "likely to cause" those things. Someone can honestly claim they are alarmed by the idea of equal civil rights for blacks and whites. If they truly are "alarmed" by that prospect, or "insulted" that someone told them there is a god or there is no god....the idea of "likely to cause" has already been breached. And yet those are certainly well within the realm of free speech or there is NO free speech. Free speech isn't a sometimes type of thing. It is an almost always type of thing.
The limitations to free speech are and should be extremely limited and well known by now- threats of harm, inciting violence in a mob, falsely yelling fire in crowded theater. Once you add "insults" to that you make a total mockery of the entire principle of free speech. What is being protected if it is not those things that people will find alarming or insulting? If not insulting speech, what is being protected and kept as a right? The right to use dangling participles as long as no insult can be gleaned by anyone?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 1, 2012 9:44:39 GMT -5
Fair enough, bin. I did not intend to concede any such point, that it could be considered illegal to insult anyone, but I can see how I may have done that
Yes, the entire law is trash. But since it is law, that was the language that disturbed me the most...because it basically means you can arrest anyone for saying anything.
There is almost no such thing as non-tendentious speech. Freud knew this. Someone can (and these days, usually will) always be offended.
And I am extremely offended by dangling participles. I want them wiped off the face of the Earth.
;D
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 1, 2012 15:32:29 GMT -5
Fair enough, bin. I did not intend to concede any such point, that it could be considered illegal to insult anyone, but I can see how I may have done that Yes, the entire law is trash. But since it is law, that was the language that disturbed me the most...because it basically means you can arrest anyone for saying anything. There is almost no such thing as non-tendentious speech. Freud knew this. Someone can (and these days, usually will) always be offended. And I am extremely offended by dangling participles. I want them wiped off the face of the Earth. ;D If I'm a British citizen, and the law itself offends me, could the court, arresting officers and those who wrote be arrested?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 8, 2012 11:02:43 GMT -5
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 8, 2012 11:07:56 GMT -5
A few thoughts: Wonder who gets to be the county employee that screens films for compliance? Would not want to be responsible for maintaining the "evidence vault." Who knew Hungary was such a hotbed of production?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 18, 2013 11:58:36 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 7, 2013 10:02:15 GMT -5
Cigarettes, unpasteurized milk, pinball machines, bullying speech, porn....
....HA!
All just chump change.
Little did we know! Apparently, if you're dodgy at all in any way, they can just kill you.
Death from above!
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Mar 11, 2013 14:49:35 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.htmlI'm taking my usual position on this one. NYC is (generally speaking) well within its rights to ban Big Gulps et. al., even if such a ban is ridiculously stupid. Based on this report, the court appears to agree that if numerous loopholes (if you sell hot dogs you can't sell Big Gulps, if you don't sell food you can) were eliminated from the ordinance, the ban would be okay, legally speaking. This will be championed by many as the triumph of reason and freedom against stupidity and nanny statism. It's not. The ban (without so many loopholes) is still legal, and the ban (again, without so many loopholes) is still going to happen. Instead of praising the court's ruling/pretending that it validates their worldview, those who are really upset by the soda ban should be diverting energy to electing new city officials who would not enact such a silly law. ON EDIT: Well, never mind. I apparently linked to a different article than the one I initially read, which states some additional reasons which indicate a ban may not work in NYC even if the loopholes are eliminated. ON RE-EDIT: Here's a link to the ruling: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/12/nyregion/12soda-decision.html?ref=nyregion
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 11, 2013 15:42:19 GMT -5
Instead of praising the court's ruling/pretending that it validates their worldview, those who are really upset by the soda ban should be diverting energy to electing new city officials who would not enact such a silly law. Oh, I imagine they'd* like to do both, don't you think? I also imagine that doing the former is a good way to garner support for doing the latter. (*I only say "they" and not "we," as I am currently not a resident of NY state or city.)
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 11, 2013 9:31:33 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 11, 2013 11:05:29 GMT -5
Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the legislation, added that the city did not need to kowtow to threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”Wow. OK, Vincent.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 11, 2013 17:04:15 GMT -5
Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), a lead backer of the legislation, added that the city did not need to kowtow to threats. “We’re at a point where we don’t need retailers. Retailers need us.”Wow. OK, Vincent. "According to United States Census and geographical data, Wards 5 and 7 are areas that need new grocery options the most. According to 2010 census data, more than 52,000 people live in the census tracts nearest to the proposed Walmarts. These areas are classified by many advocates, including the group D.C. Hunger Solutions, as food deserts; areas where access to grocery stores and fresh food is limited. "For many years, Ward 7 has been a food desert and Walmart would have provided residents with additional grocery and retail options," Ward 7 Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, who voted no on the LRAA, said." www.wjla.com/articles/2013/07/d-c-walmart-pullout-would-leave-residents-with-few-grocery-options-91191.html
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jul 11, 2013 22:15:17 GMT -5
And in a vacuum they would be a great solution to the food desert problem.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Mar 6, 2014 0:55:54 GMT -5
Los Angeles city council: We don't know whether e-cigarettes are safe, so we must ban them. "And if this device turns out to be safe, then we can always undo the ordinance." Thanks for protecting me from the unknown through preemptive government regulation, Los Angeles! Link
|
|