 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I don't believe that speech was included at the time of the BoR for society-at-large censorship, but rather protection from vengeful governing bodies like royalty or Congress. As I stated earlier, there were no neo-nazis in the late 18th (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) And what is "inappropriate"? Who decides? You? Some would argue it is inappropriate that women are permitted out in public unveiled. Sure, Nazism is a horrible, evil thing, but should we restrict someone's right to act like a jerk if they want (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Freedom of Protest, was Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Nick's point is that there is a difference between "restrict someone's right to act like a jerk" AND "restrict someone's right to act like a jerk anywhere they please. The Supreme Court has held up "free speach zones" - especially on college (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I prefer it when extremist hate groups say really stupid things in public. It shows the rest of society what they really believe. Forcing groups like this undgerground is just ignoring the issue. Jeff (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Who decides what is appropriate? You? (...) Right, so let's force them all into extermination camps. Not the same issue. (...) If in the course of being a jerk, you earmark a minority group of humans for death, we should restrict it. Should we (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I agree with that. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. But that's not the same as saying "it's ok". (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) You're confusing speech with action. Wearing a swastika= speech. Murdering millions = action. Advocating slavery = speech, enslaving people = action. HUGE difference. (...) Again, a symbol is speech, not an action. And I'm using a few extreme (...) (19 years ago, 9-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Actually, no he isn't. You are. You said "should we restrict someone's right to ACT like a jerk if they want to?" "Act" generally means action, not speech. (...) I'm not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any respect. (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Pretty simple - if it doesn't hurt anyone to make a statement, it should be protected. But if we start restricting things because it upsets someone, we're starting down a slippery slope. Offensive speech is the only type that really needs (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Correct. The question specifically stated "act". Samuel is framing my answer with what he thought, not what he wrote. (...) I choose not to. You can split hairs all you like, but a symbol represents something. In this case, it represents the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I would imagine it's hurtful to the Jews that survived the camps, as well as Jews in general. But I guess I really don't know. You seem to know what is and isn't hurtful 3o:) This is an emoticon of me teabagging you. It doesn't hurt anyone... (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Again, you're talking about forced restricting. Is it possible that Nick and I are suggesting that Richie should have restricted himself? Also, you forgot to answer the question as to what exactly "speech behavior" is. Either its speech or its (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Exactly. (URL) Me, too.> JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) An obscene emoticon! My one weakness! NOOO...OOO!!!!! (19 years ago, 11-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Obscene emoticons are my super power. They should make comic books about us. (19 years ago, 11-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) It would be a huge hit. The next X-Men or Spiderman. A whole franchise, movies, etc. (19 years ago, 11-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) $$$$ (That's an emoticon of the four-finger ring I'll be wearing after the second movie) (19 years ago, 11-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@rmspam...mspam.com> wrote in message news:IKz1qq.1yAA@lugnet.com... (...) I agree with this as well. As much as I hate the idea of neo-Nazi's marching down the main street of my town (even though there's only a (...) (19 years ago, 22-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) I dunno about that. I haven't seen much of Ali G, but I read his interview with Buzz Aldrin. Extremely funny, but I don't think Aldrin is an idiot. (19 years ago, 22-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
|
(...) Perhaps he was the one in ten? Tim (19 years ago, 22-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
