If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   If there is anyone who values free speech, it's me, a tenured professor. That's why I think the producer of the Mohammed Youtube should be put in jail   (usatoday.com) divider line 474
    More: Dumbass, religious tolerance, American Living  
•       •       •

7639 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 7:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 04:19:59 PM
I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
 
2012-09-14 04:20:02 PM
If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.
 
2012-09-14 04:22:48 PM

King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.


Those aren't really analogous.
 
2012-09-14 04:24:22 PM
I don't think that guy should be put in jail at all. He exercised his 1st Amendment rights and he's got every right to. The government should not infringe that right.

But that doesn't mean we should be obligated to protect him.
 
2012-09-14 04:32:13 PM

St_Francis_P: There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


Shot to hell in about 1 minute.
 
2012-09-14 04:35:38 PM

St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.
 
2012-09-14 04:38:08 PM

Nabb1: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.


What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?
 
2012-09-14 04:39:02 PM

St_Francis_P: Nabb1: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.

What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?


Yeah, sorry, that was supposed to come across as adding to your same point, but it looks contradictory. My bad. I've had a rough day.
 
2012-09-14 04:40:15 PM

Nabb1: St_Francis_P: Nabb1: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.

What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?

Yeah, sorry, that was supposed to come across as adding to your same point, but it looks contradictory. My bad. I've had a rough day.


No problem, I didn't mean to snipe.
 
2012-09-14 04:42:28 PM

St_Francis_P: No problem, I didn't mean to snipe.


Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown FARK.
 
2012-09-14 05:34:38 PM

King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.


Or calling an abortion doctor a "baby killer".

Or putting "surveyor's marks" on a map of your opponents' districts.
 
2012-09-14 05:43:31 PM
For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.
 
2012-09-14 05:59:37 PM
free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.
 
2012-09-14 06:07:07 PM

Ambivalence: free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.


*sigh*
 
2012-09-14 06:19:56 PM

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.


Well said, sir.

Had to go back in and have a surgeon drain my foot today, BTW. It hurt like hell. I saw things that make me understand why I was never cut out for med school.
 
2012-09-14 06:27:32 PM
I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.
 
2012-09-14 06:34:56 PM

violentsalvation: I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.


Playing devil's advocate, if he intended to cause riots etc., that's shading into yelling fire territory.
 
2012-09-14 07:53:42 PM

St_Francis_P: violentsalvation: I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.

Playing devil's advocate, if he intended to cause riots etc., that's shading into yelling fire territory.


Yeah, not really. Regardless as to what he intended, the guy uploaded a low-budget video to YouTube. That's it. People can choose to watch it or not, it's not like he broke into Comcast and forced it on to everyone's TV set.
 
2012-09-14 07:54:40 PM

Aarontology: King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.

Those aren't really analogous.


I don't think sexual orientation is really the issue here.
 
2012-09-14 07:55:40 PM
Obviously he doesn't value free speech.
 
2012-09-14 07:56:15 PM
Amazing how many Farkers are professing themselves without even having seen 20 seconds of the "film".

But then again, that would surprise me.
 
2012-09-14 07:56:43 PM
You know how the wingnuts talk about leftists being awfully generous with other people′s money? Well, this filmmaker is being awfully courageous with other people′s lives.
 
2012-09-14 07:56:50 PM
When will Anthea Butler be arrested?
 
2012-09-14 07:57:05 PM
Everything causes riots (it seems) if you insult Islam. I realize not all Muslims react that way, but it *seems* like that religion has more problems (per capita) than most.
 
2012-09-14 07:57:08 PM
Mohammed is just a name. Unlike George
which is obviously referring to George Costanza
 
2012-09-14 07:59:09 PM
Professors are usually a bit more clever than that. *reads article*

Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religious studies

Ah, that explains the idiocy.
 
2012-09-14 07:59:51 PM
This is not like shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's like uploading a video of a fire to youtube and telling people in a theater that it exists.
 
2012-09-14 08:00:44 PM
Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire?
 
2012-09-14 08:02:25 PM
While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.

In related news, China wants this mural taken down.

media.kval.com

"This represents the basis of our representative democracy, our freedom of speech and our rights, and it will not be bullied by China or any other overseas interest," Defazio told Congress.
 
2012-09-14 08:02:47 PM
Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?
 
2012-09-14 08:03:14 PM
fark ALL YOU LOSER COWARDS, I HOPE YOU ALL DIE FROM CHOKING ON A GIANT DISEASED DICK
 
2012-09-14 08:04:25 PM

Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?


The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)
 
2012-09-14 08:05:20 PM

Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?



Irrational issue is irrational.

I blame the blamers.
 
2012-09-14 08:05:45 PM

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.


THIS THIS THIS!
A thousand times THIS.

Let me just point something out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

That right there was seen by a LOT of Christians as horribly sacrilegious and disrespectful.But did you see those offended riot, burn down buildings, and murder people? No... why? because the people involved didn't have the impulse control of terminally ADD afflicted Chimps riding on an overdose of caffeine pills.

The author was indeed a freaking idiot. You protect speech... all speech, even the shiat that makes people angry. Why? Because otherwise you give in to the bullies, to the small minded xenophobes, to the dictators and evil people. Instead we should be rounding up the protestors to find out what priests, imams, terrorists or whatever (whoever) are inciting them and start charging them with inciting others to riot and kill.
 
2012-09-14 08:05:52 PM
Nice, now we get to witness the libderp brigade proclaim that the 1st amendment is under review and the replay officials are under the hood. *cue the Bud Light commercial*

I don't know what was in this stupid 'movie', and quite honestly, I don't care. The attacks on US embassies and it's citizens has fark all to do with a piece of Youtube crap. But do keep farking that chicken. She's about to cum any minute. November cannot get here fast enough.
 
2012-09-14 08:05:58 PM

St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


"Imminent lawless action" is the current standard for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. Since the speaker didn't intend to incite a violation of the law, the movie was perfectly legal.
 
2012-09-14 08:06:44 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?

The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)


Translated: the filmmakers are douchebags, but seriously?
 
2012-09-14 08:06:57 PM
Threads like these serve as a stark reminder of how just many of our fellow Americans would be thrilled to throw away one of our most sacred freedoms for the sake of a little perceived security or butthurt.
 
2012-09-14 08:09:12 PM

St_Francis_P: Nabb1: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

But you can still whisper it to the person next to you. And this is NOTHING like shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of Speech means you sometimes have to put up with obnoxious speech.

What part of "I don't agree" was confusing?


The part where you aid "there is a line you can cross". No sir, there isn't, and that's why what you said was contradictory.

/Doublespeak much?
 
2012-09-14 08:09:13 PM

BMFPitt: Threads like these serve as a stark reminder of how just many of our fellow Americans would be thrilled to throw away one of our most sacred freedoms for the sake of a little perceived security or butthurt.


For a nation full of rugged individualists, we sure are pants-pissingly scared of shiat.
 
2012-09-14 08:09:42 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?

The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)

Translated: the filmmakers are douchebags, but seriously?


I was listening to an NPR report on the protests/violence the other day. The correspondent noted that she hadn't been able to find a protester who had actually seen the YouTube clip.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:00 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Nice, now we get to witness the libderp brigade proclaim that the 1st amendment is under review and the replay officials are under the hood. *cue the Bud Light commercial*

I don't know what was in this stupid 'movie', and quite honestly, I don't care. The attacks on US embassies and it's citizens has fark all to do with a piece of Youtube crap. But do keep farking that chicken. She's about to cum any minute. November cannot get here fast enough.


Wow.

Could you spew more smelly-ugly vitriol, please?

Clean up your discourse, sir.

I know you can and do.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:09 PM

violentsalvation: I'm not going to give up my freedom of speech just because some cavemen on the other side of the planet can't handle hearing something they don't like. And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.


This is the first time I've 'logged in' in 4 years just to say that this quote is why America is awesome.

/seriously, I had 4 happy birthday messages waiting for deletion
 
2012-09-14 08:10:25 PM

COMALite J: You know how the wingnuts talk about leftists being awfully generous with other people′s money? Well, this filmmaker is being awfully courageous with other people′s lives.


You do realize The Ring was just a movie, right? In real life, videos do not actually kill people.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:31 PM

hbk72777: The part where you aid "there is a line you can cross". No sir, there isn't, and that's why what you said was contradictory.


You are wrong. There is in fact speech that is not protected, such as libel and slander. He did not say anything contradictory at all.
 
2012-09-14 08:10:53 PM

Shostie: Indubitably: Indubitably: Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?

The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)

Translated: the filmmakers are douchebags, but seriously?

I was listening to an NPR report on the protests/violence the other day. The correspondent noted that she hadn't been able to find a protester who had actually seen the YouTube clip.


Exactly.
 
2012-09-14 08:11:30 PM

Indubitably: Shostie: Indubitably: Indubitably: Indubitably: Propaganda incites violence: blame whom?

The moment we assume that each individual lost that capability the moment they witnessed some atrocity to them is the moment we accept we are all robots and reboot. ;)

Translated: the filmmakers are douchebags, but seriously?

I was listening to an NPR report on the protests/violence the other day. The correspondent noted that she hadn't been able to find a protester who had actually seen the YouTube clip.

Exactly.


*sigh*
 
2012-09-14 08:11:43 PM

ignacio: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

"Imminent lawless action" is the current standard for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. Since the speaker didn't intend to incite a violation of the law, the movie was perfectly legal.


Exactly. If the film had asked people to attack U.S. embassies, it would have been a crime. Fortunately, insulting religion is still protected speech.
 
2012-09-14 08:13:06 PM
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/religious_studies/faculty/butler

As it turns out, she is also releasing a new book! What a great time to gather attention about oneself!
 
2012-09-14 08:13:23 PM

BSABSVR: hbk72777: The part where you aid "there is a line you can cross". No sir, there isn't, and that's why what you said was contradictory.

You are wrong. There is in fact speech that is not protected, such as libel and slander. He did not say anything contradictory at all.


Libel and slander cases are rarely solved justly, as abstracts often are...not...solved.

fark my ellipsis.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report