America proves itself to belong to the 3rd World. Again.

You can tell some one's trying to have a serious discussion when they finish their thought with, "Go jack off to animie or something."
 
Solaris said:
**** off with these stupid images when we're having a serious discussion. Go jack off to animie or something.
Click to expand...
1266792864146.png
 
As I said, the OP is right.

Woah.
 
"I think the OP is right. **** repression of speech. It's an overrated concept of a so-called 'security' which is designed to do nothing but empower the agents of government and those that suppress dissent, and protect the criminal elements of the political process."

Numbers I would like your thoughts on this.
 
Stigmata said:
**** repression of speech.
Click to expand...

Now 'repression' is a harsh word to use. I'd be against "repression", but for "adjustment" or "modification" or "rectification".

It's an overrated concept of a so-called 'security' which is designed to do nothing but
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I can't argue with my own words.

empower the agents of government
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing?

and those that suppress dissent
Click to expand...

Again, dissent isn't a good thing in a secure free capitalistic democracy.

and protect the criminal elements of the political process."
Click to expand...

That's a null argument; the if the government is doing it, it's not exactly illegal, is it?


This was hard. Nice try, anyway. :p


EDIT: You should be aware, however, that I am purposefully publicly siding with the OP to discredit him using by talent for being discredited. :p
 
I read this thread and I was all "Woah people dont like freedom of speech oh wait its halflife2.net"
 
If I were a mod, I wouldn't, because I simply respect freedom of speech too much to abuse my power can i please be a mod now
 
Solaris said:
**** off with these stupid images when we're having a serious discussion. Go jack off to animie or something.
Click to expand...

Hard to have a serious discussion when people are arguing against one of the principles that define the United States.

15357 said:
text
Click to expand...

As for Numbers:

You'll always have dissent. The only difference is whether it is private or public. And, dissent -is- good. It tells the government what ****ing sucks and needs to be fixed. Whether they act on it is a different story, as sometimes they need a little bit more than a word in the ear.

And your last point about "if the government is doing it then it isn't illegal" - that's called violating the Rule of Law, the idea that everyone in the country is held accountable under the law. Again, this is something the United States is built upon (even if certain intelligence agencies seem to ignore it most of the time). See: Public officials who have gone to jail for one thing or another.
 
"Hard to have a serious discussion when people are arguing against one of the principles that define the United States."

As is the United States has a monopoly on morality? Tell that to Sacco and Vanzetti!
 
That's not even it. It's just sometimes, someone comes along and says something so profoundly stupid you can't even comment with words. What he said was basically, "We should have free speech, but only certain kinds of speech should be free." What are you supposed to say to that?
 
Tagaziel said:
This the key problem. "Freedom of speech" shouldn't mean "You're free to say whatever you want". If someone is publicly stating that Black/Jew/Indian/White/Yellow/Islam/Catholic/Homo/etc. people are an inferior type of man (optionally adding that they should be shot and burned), then he should be prosecuted to hell and back, rather than protected by the law.
Click to expand...
4skv1u.jpg
 
Free speech already has limitations though, even in the US.
 
Krynn72 said:
Its not illegal to be an immoral capitalist.
Click to expand...

Not really, but it is sort of is being hypocritical if you blame others countries for being immoral dictatorship. Its a dictatorship; it may or may not work depending on the country and its people, same with a country that prides itself on being a capitalist
 
I don't disagree. But then, its not illegal to be a hypocrite either.
 
Solaris said:
"Hard to have a serious discussion when people are arguing against one of the principles that define the United States."

As is the United States has a monopoly on morality? Tell that to Sacco and Vanzetti!
Click to expand...

This response makes no sense and is entirely irrelevant. My post had nothing to do with morality.
 
This is absolutely the right ruling. Thank you Supreme Court for upholding the constitution.
 
yeah we all know what the OP would want to do with the dogs instead.....
 
The Monkey said:
They said "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people", which I thought was stupid, as it was written by a couple of rich slave owners in 1789, and has jack shit to do with what the American people think or feel today.
Click to expand...

I agree with you however in the context of the ruling the judge said that it was a clear violation of free speech in the spirit of why the it was written in the first place. that's all he's saying


and to those who think free speech gives you freedom to say whatever you want; try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre or that jews should be killed on sight to a capacity crowd at some redneck rally. hell free speech is even limited by "zones"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
 
I like how all these people from foreign countries are trying to contemplate the supposed 'relevance' of constitutional law, and then saying that it isn't relevant. Newsflash, asshats, it's invoked DAILY here in the US.

I guarantee this bill was designed to get ramrodded into the legal system using dogfighting as the poster-boy issue, while serving the real agenda of eliminating any and all fishing/hunting/etc. shows. It's typical PETA hidden agenda bullshit.

As Stern said, PREMATURE OVERREACTION! I mean, shit, even though Stern hates most of American politics he at least bothered to figure out the ****ing situation.

Also, animals don't have rights.

As a footnote, this thread is hilarious and full of win.
 
As an American, there's a lot of things I'm not proud of. But freedom of speech sure as hell isn't one of them. Sitting here and reading comments stating that inflammatory or "hateful" speech should be censored and controlled by the government has made me feel more patriotic than I have in quite awhile. There is absolutely no point of view or statement that should ever be censored, under any circumstances. This includes unpleasant and morally objectionable content such as dog fights.

In principle I'm not even sure I would draw the line at child pornography. While certainly the act of creating it should be punished to the harshest extreme of the law, I find it hard to justify the banning of ownership. I absolutely despise it and a ban in importing and creating it is certainly warranted, but a ban on ownership of any form of media I feel is a step too far.

Bringing up bomb threats or shouting Fire! is a whole different story. Guns are legal here too, but shooting someone isn't. It isn't so much the speech that's prohibited as the act of creating chaos and violence.

Free speech is an absolutely essential right in a free society. Arguably the most important of all. To see it shrugged off so lightly here is truly disgusting.
 
smwScott said:
As an American, there's a lot of things I'm not proud of. But freedom of speech sure as hell isn't one of them. Sitting here and reading comments stating that inflammatory or "hateful" speech should be censored and controlled by the government has made me feel more patriotic than I have in quite awhile. There is absolutely no point of view or statement that should ever be censored, under any circumstances. This includes unpleasant and morally objectionable content such as dog fights.

In principle I'm not even sure I would draw the line at child pornography. While certainly the act of creating it should be punished to the harshest extreme of the law, I find it hard to justify the banning of ownership. I absolutely despise it and a ban in importing and creating it is certainly warranted, but a ban on ownership of any form of media I feel is a step too far.

Bringing up bomb threats or shouting Fire! is a whole different story. Guns are legal here too, but shooting someone isn't. It isn't so much the speech that's prohibited as the act of creating chaos and violence.

Free speech is an absolutely essential right in a free society. Arguably the most important of all. To see it shrugged off so lightly here is truly disgusting.
Click to expand...



free speech isnt free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone



Maestro said:
I guarantee this bill was designed to get ramrodded into the legal system using dogfighting as the poster-boy issue, while serving the real agenda of eliminating any and all fishing/hunting/etc. shows. It's typical PETA hidden agenda bullshit.
Click to expand...

wow you dont actually believe this nonsense do you? you even complain about people overreacting in the same post.
 
Krynn72 said:
First_amendment_zone1.jpg

-The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
I laughed.

But Stern, these are for assemblies. Freedom of speech in general isn't limited to specific geographical areas.
Click to expand...

I realise that. it would be pretty silly if you had to drive to one of these zones every time you wanted to speak your mind


"and the jews ...!!!"
 
There are also some libel/slander limits on freedom of speech iirc.
 
Eejit said:
There are also some libel/slander limits on freedom of speech iirc.
Click to expand...

Not in the USA. Civil suits can be brought against you for libel or slander, but they will almost always be rejected unless the person bringing up the suit proves that the words are untrue and harmful.
 
Isn't it the case over there that someone found guilty of slander or libel cannot then repeat the relevant statements? Or is it just informal, that they'd just be sued again and lose again?
 
CptStern said:
wow you dont actually believe this nonsense do you? you even complain about people overreacting in the same post.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact this is exactly what I believe. I'm not overreacting. I just finished a research paper on animal rights and it is truly amazing just how far PETA et. al. will overstep their bounds in an attempt to gain 'freedom' for animals. Their names may not necessarily be on it, but it has their typical tactics written ALL over it.

Who else would come up with a bill to ban dogfighting that has overreaching consequences of banning fishing and hunting shows?
 
Except they're not banning dogfighting (which is already illegal) at all.
 
Sheepo said:
Except they're not banning dogfighting (which is already illegal) at all.
Click to expand...

You know what I meant. Dogfighting pictures. Try to get past your petty nitpicks of semantics.
 
Is there a difference between something being banned and something being illegal, other than the potential prosecutions?

Either one, if you get caught, you'll suffer the consequences.

At the end of the day, everything that is illegal is only ever illegal if you get caught.

Its not what you know, its what you can prove in court.

When the cat is away the mice will play.

Etc etc.

So, to be honest, this kind of thing will carry on going regardless of whether its made illegal or not. If anything, making it illegal will make the situation worse. There will be more money involved, therefore more people getting involved to make a profit.

Plus these dogs are, as far as Im aware, bred only for fighting purposes.

Its arguably no different to slave traders effectively ''breading'' super slaves by picking slaves with the best genes so that they could be better workers. Thats people being ''bred'' to work.

And if this goes against animal rights, then Zoos should be shut down and their owners and staff hung, drawn and quartered.#

Dear god I hate zoos. Its just 100% wrong.
 
People who say zoos should be shut down are just ignorant. I'm serial. They provide an important safety net for endangered species in case of extinction in the wild.
The non-endagered species in zoos are usually popular crowd pleasers and therefore help to fund the breeding programmes of the more at-risk animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

xcellerate
The longest....
Replies
8
Views
816
hungryduck
hungryduck
Back
Top