Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Free at last? Just a dream for Americans who want MLK's most famous speech   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Martin Luther King, Americans, famous speeches, March on Washington  
•       •       •

4469 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2013 at 8:51 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-08-28 08:10:36 AM  
Kang's families gots to get paid!
 
2013-08-28 08:32:11 AM  
I guess MSNBC is playing it in full, I think twice, today.

Maybe it will become a lot easier to watch after that...
 
2013-08-28 08:34:08 AM  
Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-08-28 08:55:03 AM  
And every time you pay, they chime out "Fee and last, fee at last, thank the almighty dollar I got my fee at last!"
 
2013-08-28 08:56:35 AM  

nekom: Thanks, Obama.


I blame and/or credit Obama and/or Bush!

/and possibly Clinton, Ford and LBJ
//Nixon don't get a pass either
 
2013-08-28 08:56:42 AM  
I guess it's best we just forget about the guy.
 
2013-08-28 08:57:34 AM  
Here  it is on Youtube.
 
2013-08-28 08:58:53 AM  
Do they get a royalty check for every boulevard named after him?
 
2013-08-28 08:59:01 AM  
Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!
 
2013-08-28 09:01:04 AM  
You'd think that a speech made in a public forum would be public domain but strangely no. The people who recorded King speaking, I guess, violate the copyright.

Just waiting for Nancy Reagan to copyright all of Ron's speeches. Make the Repubs pay for Zombie Reagan's appearances.
 
2013-08-28 09:06:05 AM  
"...that is the principal tenant upon which copyright laws were created."

Is there a "Bob the Angry Flower" for this one?
 
2013-08-28 09:07:41 AM  
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-28 09:08:25 AM  
Protip: Don't take the subway to the memorial in Atlanta if you're white. Just.....don't.
 
2013-08-28 09:09:37 AM  
Money was raised to build the statue of MLK on the National Monument and they were all ready to go, had raised enough money. Then here comes the family demanding their cut. The family had already been paid over $700,000 thousand since 2003 from the non profit forpermission to use MLK'simage and words. The family now wanted $800 thousand more or they would stop the project. I don't know if they ever got it. Maybe they did somehow and that is why they had to outsource the project to China.... :)
 
GBB
2013-08-28 09:10:19 AM  
www.jonco48.com
 
2013-08-28 09:11:55 AM  

offacue: Do they get a royalty check for every boulevard named after him?


Yes, they got paid for ever time a street or whatever was named after him. Those were paid to them with our tax dollars.
 
2013-08-28 09:12:03 AM  

nekom: Thanks, Obama.

Disney

/get it right
 
2013-08-28 09:12:21 AM  
The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.
 
2013-08-28 09:12:42 AM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!


This will be a good thread to add to my list of racists.

/you're not funny and it isn't ironic
//just sad
 
2013-08-28 09:16:37 AM  
o.onionstatic.com
 
2013-08-28 09:18:13 AM  
at least until it enters the public domain in 2038

The Mouse ain't gonna let that happen.
 
2013-08-28 09:18:51 AM  
Why do I keep getting 'Four Oh Three' when trying to put rotten cocksuckers on my ignore list today?
 
2013-08-28 09:19:39 AM  

tetsoushima: [850x714 from http://o.onionstatic.com/images/5/5426/original/700.hq.jpg?2506 image 850x714]


And another racist....
 
GBB
2013-08-28 09:20:31 AM  

AdrienVeidt: Why do I keep getting 'Four Oh Three' when trying to put rotten cocksuckers on my ignore list today?


cause you can't ignore yourself?
 
2013-08-28 09:21:43 AM  
I see we've got some people railing on his family for what's perceived as greed... not gonna touch that one. I was more weirded out that he himself was the one who essentially applied for the copyright, very shortly after delivering the speech. I'm not sure how to feel about that...
 
2013-08-28 09:23:28 AM  
8pm eastern, msnbc.

Some context.
 
2013-08-28 09:24:46 AM  
Also on msnbc after Obama's speech at 4pm eastern.
 
2013-08-28 09:26:01 AM  
Just think of the Mega-Church MLK would have had by now.

/PTL
 
2013-08-28 09:27:42 AM  

asynchron: I see we've got some people railing on his family for what's perceived as greed... not gonna touch that one. I was more weirded out that he himself was the one who essentially applied for the copyright, very shortly after delivering the speech. I'm not sure how to feel about that...


He was a pastor involved in the civil rights movement, and he had a family. It's not a lucrative field to go into, and he wanted to leverage his career as a civil rights leader to make sure that his family was provided for after his death. He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.
 
2013-08-28 09:27:44 AM  
Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.
 
2013-08-28 09:29:16 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!

This will be a good thread to add to my list of racists.

/you're not funny and it isn't ironic
//just sad


What?
Have a cup of coffee and check what site you're at again...
 
2013-08-28 09:33:53 AM  

gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.


On the surface, I agree with this.  However, on the other hand, I think some things are just too important and belong to history.  I think this is one of those things.
 
2013-08-28 09:34:07 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: asynchron: I see we've got some people railing on his family for what's perceived as greed... not gonna touch that one. I was more weirded out that he himself was the one who essentially applied for the copyright, very shortly after delivering the speech. I'm not sure how to feel about that...

He was a pastor involved in the civil rights movement, and he had a family. It's not a lucrative field to go into, and he wanted to leverage his career as a civil rights leader to make sure that his family was provided for after his death. He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.


Life insurance?
 
2013-08-28 09:37:47 AM  

Mugato: Kang's families gots to get paid!


Damn, borderline racist comment at position 1 in the thread.  Mark 'er done and done.
 
GBB
2013-08-28 09:38:30 AM  

KimNorth: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!

This will be a good thread to add to my list of racists.

/you're not funny and it isn't ironic
//just sad

What?
Have a cup of coffee and check what site you're at again...


"Have a cup of coffee..."??
Coffee is black.... I see what you're doing.
/sarcasm
 
2013-08-28 09:41:46 AM  

Mugato: Kang's families gots to get paid!


It's a bit more complicated then that.

King himself is the reason why they copyrighted the entire speech.  Maybe two months after it was given.  And do you know why?

Sony started putting the speech out on records.  And pocketing all the money.
 
2013-08-28 09:42:49 AM  
s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-08-28 09:43:03 AM  

KimNorth: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!

This will be a good thread to add to my list of racists.
/you're not funny and it isn't ironic
//just sad

What?
Have a cup of coffee and check what site you're at again...


Thinskinnedubersrsbznz.com

/racism is a pack of cards
 
2013-08-28 09:43:18 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.


Poor? I bet they had a refrigerator!
 
2013-08-28 09:43:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.


Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.
 
2013-08-28 09:43:52 AM  
 
2013-08-28 09:44:49 AM  
Is this the thread to discuss King's rampant infidelity and the subsequent hypocrisy of his status as a religious leader?

King wouldn't make it past the gossip section of the 24 hr news network morning shows today. It doesn't mean he wasn't a great man - he was - but our ongoing prissy puritanical bs keeps us stuck.

/there's a great segment from NPR out there covering a book about forgiving King's (and others')kind of indiscretions.
 
2013-08-28 09:46:33 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-28 09:47:17 AM  
Wow, the first handful of posts went right in the gutter.
//shameful
 
GBB
2013-08-28 09:48:22 AM  

INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.


Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.
 
2013-08-28 09:48:25 AM  
Bah. What really pisses me off is those jerks who own the copyright to happy birthday. Protecting MLK's image from predatory marketing and using the funds to support a family is fine. Trying to make royalties off a hundred year old american kid's song is what's truly asinine.
 
2013-08-28 09:50:12 AM  
It's on youtube and linked near the bottom of "officialmlkdream50.com"
 
2013-08-28 09:50:45 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: asynchron: I see we've got some people railing on his family for what's perceived as greed... not gonna touch that one. I was more weirded out that he himself was the one who essentially applied for the copyright, very shortly after delivering the speech. I'm not sure how to feel about that...

He was a pastor involved in the civil rights movement, and he had a family. It's not a lucrative field to go into, and he wanted to leverage his career as a civil rights leader to make sure that his family was provided for after his death. He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.


Wow I can see the white guilt dripping off of you across the internet. I guess the public schools did their brainwashing job correctly with you so uh, congratulations to them!
 
2013-08-28 09:52:15 AM  

Mugato: Kang's families gots to get paid!


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
 
2013-08-28 09:55:05 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: tetsoushima: [850x714 from http://o.onionstatic.com/images/5/5426/original/700.hq.jpg?2506 image 850x714]

And another racist....


I think someone needs to explain to you what racism is.
 
2013-08-28 09:55:48 AM  
Ha! Proof that MLK wasn't a communist. Suck it, J. Edgar Hoover!!
 
2013-08-28 09:58:09 AM  

GBB: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.


Right. Not talking about things is how they have become under represented. You either know very little about the current American environment for black people, the current financial/educational systems in America, or both.

When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statistically overwhelming lengths of time, and at unheard of rates.

This lead to a crippling of the black family structure (which was once extremely strong, as noted by the number of black youths being raised by grandparents) and a weakening of the community. Tie that in to that fact that convicts are almost entirely unhirable and you end up with disenfranchised young men, with no legal means to make money. Thus the gang structure in America took off and suddenly crime becomes rampant and the leading cause of death among black men ages 16-25 is gun violence.

The reciprocating effect pushes more men out of the house at earlier ages. The lower income rates lead to poorer public schools, which leads to lower educational levels, and worse job opportunities. America basically systematized racial poverty.
 
2013-08-28 09:59:30 AM  

GBB: AdrienVeidt: Why do I keep getting 'Four Oh Three' when trying to put rotten cocksuckers on my ignore list today?

cause you can't ignore yourself?


Hey! I'll have you know I'm in no way rotten at it.
 
2013-08-28 10:00:10 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: tetsoushima: [850x714 from http://o.onionstatic.com/images/5/5426/original/700.hq.jpg?2506 image 850x714]

And another racist....


blog.lib.umn.edu
 
2013-08-28 10:02:10 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: Protip: Don't take the subway to the memorial in Atlanta if you're white. Just.....don't.


I take MARTA all the time since they ruled it's OK to carry on their trains.
 
2013-08-28 10:02:48 AM  
Article Title: "Why you won't see or hear the 'I have a dream' speech"

From the article: "Individuals visiting the King Center can buy a recording of the 'I have a dream' speech for $20."
 
2013-08-28 10:06:35 AM  
I guess no one has a problem with King or his estate doing this in the first place...
 
2013-08-28 10:06:55 AM  

KidneyStone: I take MARTA all the time since they ruled it's OK to carry on their trains.


I haven't been down there in several years. Did the new ruling make people on the trains a bit more polite? The other thing is the walk from the station to the memorial. Ugh.
 
2013-08-28 10:08:25 AM  

INeedAName: There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.


I think it's more "racist" to assume for my black next door neighbor to be "represented politically", there needs to be more black leaders.

Part of the problem is people are put into voting blocks as if all of their issues are the same.  Black voters, hispanic voters, evangelical christians, etc.

The whole thing is idiotic.  My wife is 'hispanic", born and lived most of her life in S. America.  What does she have in common with a Mexican immigrant in LA or a Cuban Refugee in Miami, or a Puerto Rican in NY?  Nothing at all, other than they (kinda) originally spoke the same language.  BUT WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE HISPANICS?!

My neighbor and I are in the exact same economic bracket, we both have kids, we probably have the same concerns in life locally and nationally.  Which of us is represented politically? Neither of us really, and not because of our "race"

All of this is the antithesis of the "dream speech", but MLK's biggest fans continue to push the country in a direction away from the actual dream.
 
2013-08-28 10:08:30 AM  
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich


Isn't publicly declaring a poster of a (subjectively funny) picture racist, and then publicly declaring you're going to ignore said poster, only feeding the monster? How about instead of public declarations so as to appear to be a morally upright and outstanding netizen and therefore disqualify yourself from EVER FOREVER being dubbed a racist, you just DO IT and then make a positive contribution to the thread and STFU about who you're ignoring? You're not doing anything to educate anyone, or make a positive impression. In fact, you're only serving to further marginalize others and drive a wedge in the rift that's already there. You could do something like, I dunno, say "Hey, you ePoster, I didn't find that very funny. This is why." and then explain yourself in a thoughtful manner. Finger pointing at someone and screaming racist, then quickly ignoring them really makes you look like an immature, uneducated, willfully ignorant asshat.

Love,

The rest of us.
 
2013-08-28 10:12:46 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.

in a public forum... copyrighted after the event.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-28 10:13:16 AM  
Might as well get this over with, surprised it hasn't showed up yet
 
2013-08-28 10:14:17 AM  
i575.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-28 10:14:36 AM  
I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.
 
2013-08-28 10:17:28 AM  

INeedAName: GBB: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.

Right. Not talking about things is how they have become under represented. You either know very little about the current American environment for black people, the current financial/educational systems in America, or both.

When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statistically overwhelming lengths of time, and at unheard of rates.

This lead to a crippling of the black family structure (which was once extremely strong, as noted by the number of black youths being raised by grandparents) and a weakening of the community. Tie that in to that fact that convicts are almost entirely unhirable and you end up with disenfranchised young men, with no legal means to make money. Thus the gang structure in America took off and suddenly crime becomes rampant and the leading cause of death among black men ages 16-25 is gun violence.

The reciprocating effect pushes more men out of the house at earlier ages. The lower income rates lead to poorer public schools, which leads to lower educational levels, and worse job opportunities. America basically systematized racial poverty.


You're absolutely out of your mind if you think the destruction of black families is due to crack sentancing.
 
2013-08-28 10:18:08 AM  

MugzyBrown: INeedAName: There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

I think it's more "racist" to assume for my black next door neighbor to be "represented politically", there needs to be more black leaders.

Part of the problem is people are put into voting blocks as if all of their issues are the same.  Black voters, hispanic voters, evangelical christians, etc.

The whole thing is idiotic.  My wife is 'hispanic", born and lived most of her life in S. America.  What does she have in common with a Mexican immigrant in LA or a Cuban Refugee in Miami, or a Puerto Rican in NY?  Nothing at all, other than they (kinda) originally spoke the same language.  BUT WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE HISPANICS?!

My neighbor and I are in the exact same economic bracket, we both have kids, we probably have the same concerns in life locally and nationally.  Which of us is represented politically? Neither of us really, and not because of our "race"

All of this is the antithesis of the "dream speech", but MLK's biggest fans continue to push the country in a direction away from the actual dream.


Dang. Thank you for pointing out to me that I actually made that statement.
 
2013-08-28 10:19:28 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: GBB: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.

Right. Not talking about things is how they have become under represented. You either know very little about the current American environment for black people, the current financial/educational systems in America, or both.

When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in priso ...


It's certainly a contributing factor. You'd like to offer insight on other factors, by all means go ahead.
 
2013-08-28 10:19:48 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.


Are you talking about the 20 inch rims comment? It was a joke, man. And not even a hurtful one. Get over yourself.
 
2013-08-28 10:20:54 AM  

GBB: [662x516 from http://www.jonco48.com/blog/deram.jpg image 662x516]


Obvious photoshop is obvious.
 
2013-08-28 10:23:11 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.


You're actually comparing the two? Sigh. Where to start,
 
2013-08-28 10:23:31 AM  
Also, we don't need more black leaders for representation. We need more *human* leaders. If you're a black leader, again, you're just feeding the monster. The "black leaders" in our country are mostly shills bought off by big corporate money, just like the white leaders, Hispanic leaders, Asian leaders... the race issue in that respect serves as a distraction from the REAL problem at hand. The people buying off our politicians have no race, mostly because there is no checkbox on a standardized for for "evil scumsucker". Imagine: the black leaders of America unanimously decide they aren't fighting for the "black" race any longer, and decide they're fighting for the human race. What then? Would I no longer be considered racist for saying all of that? You know what happens when you're worried about your own race, and nothing but? History shows you pretty well with what has happened to Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Asians.. you name it (except the whites, amirite?). When your only political motivation is "fighting for" your race and you're put in power en masse, things like Detroit happen.

Yeah, go ahead, call me racist for it. It's true, though.
 
2013-08-28 10:23:39 AM  

phrawgh: nekom: Thanks, Obama.

I blame and/or credit Obama and/or Bush!

/and possibly Clinton, Ford and LBJ
//Nixon don't get a pass either


It's all the fault of those people whose politics we disagree with, or whose ethnicity or religion are objectionable.
 
2013-08-28 10:25:24 AM  
 
2013-08-28 10:25:40 AM  

INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: GBB: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.

Right. Not talking about things is how they have become under represented. You either know very little about the current American environment for black people, the current financial/educational systems in America, or both.

When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in priso ...

It's certainly a contributing factor. You'd like to offer insight on other factors, by all means go ahead.


LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.
 
2013-08-28 10:28:04 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.


No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.
 
2013-08-28 10:28:04 AM  

Witty Comment: Also, we don't need more black leaders for representation. We need more *human* leaders.


They're not "human"? Now that's old-school!
 
2013-08-28 10:31:35 AM  
"You people are crazy, racism isn't a thing anymore and actually you are racist for saying that racism is still a problem. - proceeds to say some racist shiat"

/very common type of post
 
2013-08-28 10:32:28 AM  

Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.


Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.
 
2013-08-28 10:33:57 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.

in a public forum... copyrighted after the event.


Which is completely irrelevant to copyright law, but let's not allow stupid things like "the law" get in the way of a political agenda.
 
2013-08-28 10:34:49 AM  

INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.


We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.
 
2013-08-28 10:37:22 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.


And you suggested the 'war on poverty' as a root cause. If you're going to suggest a cause, shouldn't we talk about it?
 
2013-08-28 10:37:56 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.



How dare they make money from that piece of intellectual property!  It should be public domain so that media companies can use it to make money instead!
BRB, I'm going to go chastise some people about how immoral they are for pirating an MP3 because I worship corporations for some reason and despise civil right's leaders.
 
2013-08-28 10:38:44 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.


And furthermore, the problem the modern black family structure is most rampant in urban areas, hardly "religiously conservative" societies.
 
2013-08-28 10:40:19 AM  

Frank N Stein: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And furthermore, the problem the modern black family structure is most rampant in urban areas, hardly "religiously conservative" societies.


Really? Because traditionally black Christian denominations tend to be some of the most conservative in the country. That's part of why the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit their community so heavily. No one was really able to talk about homosexuality or protected sex.
 
2013-08-28 10:41:43 AM  

INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And you suggested the 'war on poverty' as a root cause. If you're going to suggest a cause, shouldn't we talk about it?


Sure, we can talk about it. Ask away. But first I'd like you to admit that your theory is total bullocks on the grounds that the trouble with black family structure clearly began decades earlier than what you claimed "led" to its "shattering"
 
2013-08-28 10:42:18 AM  
Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.
 
2013-08-28 10:43:52 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: Protip: Don't take the subway to the memorial in Atlanta if you're white. Just.....don't.


I did that about five years ago, and I'm white as snow.  No problems.  Has it gotten worse?

/concerned
 
2013-08-28 10:44:23 AM  

INeedAName: Frank N Stein: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And furthermore, the problem the modern black family structure is most rampant in urban areas, hardly "religiously conservative" societies.

Really? Because traditionally black Christian denominations tend to be some of the most conservative in the country. That's part of why the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit their community so heavily. No one was really able to talk about homosexuality or protected sex.


Is that so? Well, I suppose that's why blacks vote overwhelmingly for the most conservative candidate in national elections.
 
2013-08-28 10:44:52 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And you suggested the 'war on poverty' as a root cause. If you're going to suggest a cause, shouldn't we talk about it?

Sure, we can talk about it. Ask away. But first I'd like you to admit that your theory is total bullocks on the grounds that the trouble with black family structure clearly began decades earlier than what you claimed "led" to its "shattering."


I find it interesting that you have offered nothing in the way of actual discussion of the issue. You've thrown out two phrases and then told me I was wrong. Especially as I didn't claim mandatory sentencing was the only cause of deterioration amongst the black family structure, but it's cool.
 
2013-08-28 10:45:38 AM  
Since 1963, King and, posthumously, his estate have strictly enforced control over use of that speech and King's likeness

images3.wikia.nocookie.net

www.morethings.com

"Will ya'll nubians PLEASE shut up?
Is this it?
Is this what I got all those ass-whoopin's for?
I had a dream once.
It was a dream that all the little black boys and little black girls would drink from the river of prosperity,
Freed from the thirst of oppression.
But low and behold, some four decades later,
What have I found but a but a bunch of trifling,
Shiftless, good-for-nothing nubians.
And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word:
It's the ugliest word in the English language.
But that is what I see now: nubians.
And you don't want to be a nubian because nubians are living contradictions.
nubians are full of unfulfilled ambitions;
nubians wax and wane, nubians love to complain;
nubians love to hear themselves talk, but hate to explain.
nubians love being another man's judge and jury,
nubians procrastinate till it's time to worry.
nubians love to be late, nubians hate to hurry....
Black Entertainment Television is the worst thing i've seen in my life!
...Usher, Michael Jackson is not a genre of music!...
I've seen what's around the corner,
I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you,
You nubians have nothing to celebrate."
 
2013-08-28 10:45:43 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: at least until it enters the public domain in 2038

The Mouse ain't gonna let that happen.


Sadly, you're spot on.  Whenever Steamboat Willie comes up for copyright expiration, Disney starts paying off lawmakers for extensions.
 
2013-08-28 10:46:27 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And furthermore, the problem the modern black family structure is most rampant in urban areas, hardly "religiously conservative" societies.

Really? Because traditionally black Christian denominations tend to be some of the most conservative in the country. That's part of why the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit their community so heavily. No one was really able to talk about homosexuality or protected sex.

Is that so? Well, I suppose that's why blacks vote overwhelmingly for the most conservative candidate in national elections.


You can be religiously conservative and still vote Democratic. It might have something to do with most 'Conservative' candidates having little to no understanding or care for black issues in America. The fact that you don't understand that really just makes me feel like I'm wasting my time in this conversation.
 
2013-08-28 10:47:02 AM  

INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.


People look for racism everywhere because the "civil rights" industry needs a self-perpetuating victim class so they can continue to extort corporate money to fuel their lavish lifestyles.  White people who dress poorly get followed in stores and get pulled over when they drive old cars in good neighborhoods just as often as Black people do.  Yet they keep pounding it into the heads of their constituents that every societal slight is the result of racism.  And the truly sad thing is that the miniscule number of racists who are out there feel empowered because of it.  Despite the fact that they have been totally marginalized, crying "racism" at every turn leads them to believe they are still having an impact and encourages them to keep doing what they think is getting under everyone's skin.
 
2013-08-28 10:47:54 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.


It was copyrighted after his death.
 
2013-08-28 10:48:02 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Hey, 20" rims ain't cheap!

This will be a good thread to add to my list of racists.

/you're not funny and it isn't ironic
//just sad


Please add me to your ignore list you cream jockey, water flaps, sugar taster, saddle shins, clink clunk, biscut neck, spoon face, apple picker, pinto, chin birrd, bucket ducker, dirty legs, door donkey, farker.

I am prety sure one of those terms would offend you.  Drity Leeeeegs!

I have no tollerance for the intollerant. It is a slippery slope.
 
2013-08-28 10:48:19 AM  

Cataholic: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

People look for racism everywhere because the "civil rights" industry needs a self-perpetuating victim class so they can continue to extort corporate money to fuel their lavish lifestyles.  White people who dress poorly get followed in stores and get pulled over when they drive old cars in good neighborhoods just as often as Black people do.  Yet they keep pounding it into the heads of their constituents that every societal slight is the result of racism.  And the truly sad thing is that the miniscule number of racists who are out there feel empowered because of it.  Despite the fact that they have been totally marginalized, crying "racism" at every turn leads them to believe they are still having an impact and encourages them to keep doing what they think is getting under everyone's skin.


You're absolutely correct. Since some white people get looked at twice, racism is no longer an issue in America. Thank you for your astute observation. I'll head down to the capitol and tell everyone to go home.
 
2013-08-28 10:49:14 AM  

INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And you suggested the 'war on poverty' as a root cause. If you're going to suggest a cause, shouldn't we talk about it?

Sure, we can talk about it. Ask away. But first I'd like you to admit that your theory is total bullocks on the grounds that the trouble with black family structure clearly began decades earlier than what you claimed "led" to its "shattering."

I find it interesting that you have offered nothing in the way of actual discussion of the issue. You've thrown out two phrases and then told me I was wrong. Especially as I didn't claim mandatory sentencing was the only cause of deterioration amongst the black family structure, but it's cool.


You talked about mandatory sentancing for crack, then said "This lead to a crippling of the black family structure (which was once extremely strong, as noted by the number of black youths being raised by grandparents) and a weakening of the community."

You can't lie when everyone can read your comments in the same farkig thread.
And no, you didn't explicitly state "this is not the only cause", but you did say that the sentancing rules directly lead to the state of black families.

Stop back peddling.
 
2013-08-28 10:49:34 AM  

Mugato: Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.


I heard an NPR interview with a Churchill biographer a while back. Apparently, he had to pay for every quote he used from one of Churchill's speeches, even though they were given as part of his public position.
 
2013-08-28 10:49:44 AM  

Witty Comment: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.

No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.


I will put it to you bluntly, and simply - so that even a child can understand: The descendants of the enslavers don't get to tell the descendents of the enslaved when racism is "over".
As a white person, I am more than content with the privilege I have inherited in America, and I respect it's cost. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. We got born on third base, dude - we didn't hit no triple. Act and react accordingly.
 
2013-08-28 10:50:50 AM  

Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.

It was copyrighted after his death.


You didn't even read the article, did you: "A few months after King delivered the speech, he sent a copy of the address to the U.S. Copyright office and listed the remarks as a "work not reproduced for sale." "
 
2013-08-28 10:51:28 AM  

MythDragon: Since 1963, King and, posthumously, his estate have strictly enforced control over use of that speech and King's likeness

[300x300 from http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130731104740/epicrapbattlesofh istory/images/5/5d/Gandhi_vs_MLK.jpg image 300x300]

[720x480 from http://www.morethings.com/fan/boondocks/boondocks-mlk-2006-1690.jpg image 720x480]

"Will ya'll nubians PLEASE shut up?
Is this it?
Is this what I got all those ass-whoopin's for?
I had a dream once.
It was a dream that all the little black boys and little black girls would drink from the river of prosperity,
Freed from the thirst of oppression.
But low and behold, some four decades later,
What have I found but a but a bunch of trifling,
Shiftless, good-for-nothing nubians.
And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word:
It's the ugliest word in the English language.
But that is what I see now: nubians.
And you don't want to be a nubian because nubians are living contradictions.
nubians are full of unfulfilled ambitions;
nubians wax and wane, nubians love to complain;
nubians love to hear themselves talk, but hate to explain.
nubians love being another man's judge and jury,
nubians procrastinate till it's time to worry.
nubians love to be late, nubians hate to hurry....
Black Entertainment Television is the worst thing i've seen in my life!
...Usher, Michael Jackson is not a genre of music!...
I've seen what's around the corner,
I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you,
You nubians have nothing to celebrate."


Is this some sort of pitch for Jello pudding?
 
GBB
2013-08-28 10:53:19 AM  

Highroller48: GBB: [662x516 from http://www.jonco48.com/blog/deram.jpg image 662x516]

Obvious photoshop is obvious.


Was it the pixels?
I bet it was the pixels.
 
2013-08-28 10:53:40 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.

It was copyrighted after his death.

You didn't even read the article, did you: "A few months after King delivered the speech, he sent a copy of the address to the U.S. Copyright office and listed the remarks as a "work not reproduced for sale." "


Not according to every other source I've looked at.
 
2013-08-28 10:54:12 AM  

Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: INeedAName: Frank N Stein: LBJ's war on poverty. Out of marriage births have been on the rise since the 60s.

Are you suggesting that welfare is to blame here? At the time LBJ gave that speech, the poverty rate was 19%, it currently sits at 16%.

And the poor access to contraceptives in a religiously conservative society has a lot to do with births. If the public school system was able to teach prevention and distribute condoms, I would wager much of that would be on the decline.

We weren't talking about poverty. We were talking about the crippling of the black family structure, as you put it.

And you suggested the 'war on poverty' as a root cause. If you're going to suggest a cause, shouldn't we talk about it?

Sure, we can talk about it. Ask away. But first I'd like you to admit that your theory is total bullocks on the grounds that the trouble with black family structure clearly began decades earlier than what you claimed "led" to its "shattering."

I find it interesting that you have offered nothing in the way of actual discussion of the issue. You've thrown out two phrases and then told me I was wrong. Especially as I didn't claim mandatory sentencing was the only cause of deterioration amongst the black family structure, but it's cool.

You talked about mandatory sentancing for crack, then said "This lead to a crippling of the black family structure (which was once extremely strong, as noted by the number of black youths being raised by grandparents) and a weakening of the community."

You can't lie when everyone can read your comments in the same farkig thread.
And no, you didn't explicitly state "this is not the only cause", but you did say that the sentancing rules directly lead to the state of black families.

Stop back peddling.


Absolutely, and I stand by that statement.

5 grams of crack got you a minimum of 5 years. You needed 500 grams of cocaine to receive a similar sentence. The prevalence of crack in the black/urban environment landed many young black men in prison.

The significant change in the family structure lead to a lot of single parent homes. Statics show boys growing up in homes with just a mother, do far worse academically. Do poorly academically, and your chances for getting gainful employment decline sharply.
 
2013-08-28 10:54:21 AM  
So, do you think that people were made to pay royalties when they used MLK's likeness in the hoodie and on the mural of Zimmerman executing Trayvon? Because if not the family is just racist race baiters like Jesse and Al. Just curious.
 
2013-08-28 10:54:30 AM  

MythDragon: Since 1963, King and, posthumously, his estate have strictly enforced control over use of that speech and King's likeness

[300x300 from http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130731104740/epicrapbattlesofh istory/images/5/5d/Gandhi_vs_MLK.jpg image 300x300]

[720x480 from http://www.morethings.com/fan/boondocks/boondocks-mlk-2006-1690.jpg image 720x480]

"Will ya'll nubians PLEASE shut up?
Is this it?
Is this what I got all those ass-whoopin's for?
I had a dream once.
It was a dream that all the little black boys and little black girls would drink from the river of prosperity,
Freed from the thirst of oppression.
But low and behold, some four decades later,
What have I found but a but a bunch of trifling,
Shiftless, good-for-nothing nubians.
And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word:
It's the ugliest word in the English language.
But that is what I see now: nubians.
And you don't want to be a nubian because nubians are living contradictions.
nubians are full of unfulfilled ambitions;
nubians wax and wane, nubians love to complain;
nubians love to hear themselves talk, but hate to explain.
nubians love being another man's judge and jury,
nubians procrastinate till it's time to worry.
nubians love to be late, nubians hate to hurry....
Black Entertainment Television is the worst thing i've seen in my life!
...Usher, Michael Jackson is not a genre of music!...
I've seen what's around the corner,
I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you,
You nubians have nothing to celebrate."


You missed the best line:

"now for a few words about SOUL PLANE" . . .
 
2013-08-28 10:55:56 AM  
Take a look at this:

http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/730

I have a copy of the LP that resulted from this negotiation, and this was done when MLK was alive.  And yes, you can still get one.  I bought mine new, less than a decade ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-March-Washington-LP-VINYL/dp/B000WNOWEA
 
2013-08-28 10:56:49 AM  

KimNorth: Money was raised to build the statue of MLK on the National Monument and they were all ready to go, had raised enough money. Then here comes the family demanding their cut. The family had already been paid over $700,000 thousand since 2003 from the non profit forpermission to use MLK'simage and words. The family now wanted $800 thousand more or they would stop the project. I don't know if they ever got it. Maybe they did somehow and that is why they had to outsource the project to China.... :)


This is so farking retard and wrong, I don't know where to start.
I'll go with, you can obviously count to potato.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-28 10:57:20 AM  

Mugato: Not according to every other source I've looked at.


How about this? It says right there in the facts of the case:

"On September 30, 1963, approximately one month after the delivery of the Speech, Dr. King took
steps to secure federal copyright protection for theSpeech under the Copyright Act of 1909, and a certificateof registration of his claim to copyright was issuedby the Copyright Office on October 2, 1963.  "

What are all these mysterious sources that you "researched" in your studious efforts to learn more about Dr. King?
 
2013-08-28 10:59:06 AM  
King may have been a good guy, but his family are scuzzbuckets.
 
2013-08-28 10:59:49 AM  

Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.

It was copyrighted after his death.

You didn't even read the article, did you: "A few months after King delivered the speech, he sent a copy of the address to the U.S. Copyright office and listed the remarks as a "work not reproduced for sale." "

Not according to every other source I've looked at.


That is also irrelevant.  Copyright protection is intrinsic, it doesn't need to be filed like a patent.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1,Copyright Basics, section "."
 
2013-08-28 11:00:35 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.

I heard an NPR interview with a Churchill biographer a while back. Apparently, he had to pay for every quote he used from one of Churchill's speeches, even though they were given as part of his public position.


That is different Churchill is white and according the posts in this thread black people getting paid for one of the most important speaches in the history of this country is some sort of travesty or rip off.
 
2013-08-28 11:00:48 AM  

jso2897: Witty


Where did I say racism was over? I'll put it simply, dude: it's not. It's so prevalent you think I'm white without knowing, in fact.
 
2013-08-28 11:03:58 AM  

KidneyStone: WhoopAssWayne: Protip: Don't take the subway to the memorial in Atlanta if you're white. Just.....don't.

I take MARTA all the time since they ruled it's OK to carry on their trains.


We tried in Oklahoma to get carry on transit encoded in law, but it died this past session in committee.
 
2013-08-28 11:04:12 AM  

jso2897: Witty


In fact, I'm saying the complete OPPOSITE. It's DEEPLY entrenched in our culture, so much so that it causes us to see race first, and humanity second. Only education can change that. I'm have yet to say anything about "racism", or "white guilt" or anything along those derpy lines. It runs deep enough that you've missed everything I've said, and just called me a racist. Again, further perpetuating the problem. I have no idea where you get off calling me the "descendant" of a slaver, either. Quite frankly, that's very presumptive and rude.
 
2013-08-28 11:04:35 AM  
I am late to this thread...


My assumption is the reason MLK Jr. didn't want it released is because of possible plagiarism issues.

/not trolling
//plagiarism was a fact
 
2013-08-28 11:09:09 AM  

monoski: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.

I heard an NPR interview with a Churchill biographer a while back. Apparently, he had to pay for every quote he used from one of Churchill's speeches, even though they were given as part of his public position.

That is different Churchill is white and according the posts in this thread black people getting paid for one of the most important speaches in the history of this country is some sort of travesty or rip off.



On top of this Churchill was a politician, so there is an argument that his speeches are more likely to be public domain.

But yeah, obviously this is about a black family "being all greedy and buying rims". God forbid that companies use his speech for free. Now, if King's family were saints they would collect the royalties and donate to charity but I don't think anyone in our society has a leg to stand on for that argument.  I can also argue that making a few bucks off of King's work is a pretty shiatty form of compensation for having your grandfather murdered for trying to spread equality.

I don't even particularly like my grandfather, and I wouldn't trade a large sum of money for his death.
 
2013-08-28 11:13:35 AM  

asynchron: I see we've got some people railing on his family for what's perceived as greed... not gonna touch that one. I was more weirded out that he himself was the one who essentially applied for the copyright, very shortly after delivering the speech. I'm not sure how to feel about that...


Yeah, I'm very surprised by that.  I would like to watch/listen to the speech in full.  Think the last time I saw it in it's entirety was in elementary school and I was still a little bit too young to fully absorb all of it.
 
2013-08-28 11:14:11 AM  
So the King family is being very nubianrdly?
 
2013-08-28 11:16:22 AM  
They're greedy, how shocking.
 
GBB
2013-08-28 11:16:53 AM  

INeedAName: GBB: INeedAName: MugzyBrown: The real tragedy is that rather than people not be judged by the color of their skin, the US has become hyper race sensitive instead, where everybody's words and actions can be parsed and viewed through the 'is this racist' prism.

Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white

It's all very sad really.

Statements like this are most often made by people who have no understanding of the current racial situation in America and can't understand why people won't just 'let it go.' There is a massive chunk of the American population that is under represented politically, economically, and socially - but let's all pretend that has nothing to do with their race, and the social uphill battle they've been fighting for years.

People look for racism because, while it may not be rampant and overt in this country the way it was 50 years ago, it is still very much a part of some people's live. I'm sorry if that's hard for you to accept, but just because you don't experience, that's no reason to believe it doesn't exist.

Which is to Mugzy's point.  "there is a massive chunk of the American population that is under-represented politically, economically, and socially".  But, "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white ", so they don't talk about it.  Which is how they become under-represented.

Right. Not talking about things is how they have become under represented. You either know very little about the current American environment for black people, the current financial/educational systems in America, or both.

When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statis ...


And why isn't this being addressed?
Because "Black people and white people are often afraid of talking politics or current events because so often they're painted as black vs white". Which is still Mugzy's point.  Crack vs cocaine is a black vs white issue when it comes to the difference in sentencing for essentially the same thing.

I'm not disagreeing with you on your points, I'm simply pointing out that you are actually in-line with MugzyBrown even though you seem to think he doesn't understand the political and racial environment.
 
2013-08-28 11:19:58 AM  

jso2897: Witty Comment: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.

No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.

I will put it to you bluntly, and simply - so that even a child can understand: The descendants of the enslavers don't get to tell the descendents of the enslaved when racism is "over".
As a white person, I am more than content with the privilege I have inherited in America, and I respect it's cost. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. We got born on third base, dude - we didn't hit no triple. Act and react accordingly.


Oh, fark off you asshat!
 
2013-08-28 11:22:34 AM  

specialkae: Yeah, I'm very surprised by that. I would like to watch/listen to the speech in full. Think the last time I saw it in it's entirety was in elementary school and I was still a little bit too young to fully absorb all of it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

You're welcome.
 
2013-08-28 11:23:25 AM  

jso2897: Witty Comment: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.

No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.

I will put it to you bluntly, and simply - so that even a child can understand: The descendants of the enslavers don't get to tell the descendents of the enslaved when racism is "over".
As a white person, I am more than content with the privilege I have inherited in America, and I respect it's cost. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. We got born on third base, dude - we didn't hit no triple. Act and react accordingly.


And for those white people in America not born on third base.

"Meh - she should give up on the hillbillies, and let them have their lard sammiches and moonpies.
Kill 'em quicker, and cleanse the gene pool."
 
2013-08-28 11:26:08 AM  

jso2897: Witty Comment: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.

No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.

I will put it to you bluntly, and simply - so that even a child can understand: The descendants of the enslavers don't get to tell the descendents of the enslaved when racism is "over".
As a white person, I am more than content with the privilege I have inherited in America, and I respect it's cost. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. We got born on third base, dude - we didn't hit no triple. Act and react accordingly.


You sound so lame. Many whites were not even in the U.S. and came here to escape their own horror, so just stop.
 
2013-08-28 11:27:58 AM  
cdn.stereogum.com

King would be proud
 
2013-08-28 11:29:45 AM  
I was wondering which MLK thread all the Republicans would choose to post in.

guess I found it
 
2013-08-28 11:36:28 AM  
Mel Gibson - "Everything's illegal in Massachusetts"
 
2013-08-28 11:39:54 AM  

fireclown: I did that about five years ago, and I'm white as snow.  No problems.  Has it gotten worse?


I did it three years ago and it was very uncomfortable. We'll be taking a cab next time, and that's a shame. This memorial needs to be accessible to everyone.
 
2013-08-28 11:40:13 AM  

TheNewJesus: I was wondering which MLK thread all the Republicans would choose to post in.

guess I found it


And labeling others as something you detest and view as stupid and trying to marginalize them makes you what, exactly?

By the way, I've never voted for, nor would I vote for, a Republican candidate. Or Libertarian, or whatever Third Party you're going to try and use to make this an "us vs. them" argument.. it's pretty telling of YOUR political viewpoint and motivation that you jumped to a "left v. right" conclusion. Guess what? The Democratic party is paid for by the same interests the Republican party is. They're JUST as bad.
 
2013-08-28 11:41:24 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud


They've come so far!
 
2013-08-28 11:48:44 AM  

ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud


i.imgur.com

You're really proud of this, right...?
 
2013-08-28 12:06:52 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud

[540x720 from http://i.imgur.com/KU4Lh0c.jpg image 540x720]

You're really proud of this, right...?


Of course not.  That kid is wearing Redskins colors.
 
2013-08-28 12:16:13 PM  

fireclown: Of course not. That kid is wearing Redskins colors.


voices.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-08-28 12:22:10 PM  

gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.


If you give a public presentation in a public venue you have no reasonable expectation that somebody won't be able to record your words and replay them.
 
2013-08-28 12:22:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud

[540x720 from http://i.imgur.com/KU4Lh0c.jpg image 540x720]

You're really proud of this, right...?


Lol good one, I mean you hardly EVER see a pregnant black woman anywhere...
 
2013-08-28 12:24:01 PM  
MythDragon:
[720x480 from http://www.morethings.com/fan/boondocks/boondocks-mlk-2006-1690.jpg image 720x480]

"Will ya'll nubians PLEASE shut up?
Is this it?
Is this what I got all those ass-whoopin's for?
I had a dream once.
It was a dream that all the little black boys and little black girls would drink from the river of prosperity,
Freed from the thirst of oppression.
But low and behold, some four decades later,
What have I found but a but a bunch of trifling,
Shiftless, good-for-nothing nubians.
And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word:
It's the ugliest word in the English language.
But that is what I see now: nubians.
And you don't want to be a nubian because nubians are living contradictions.
nubians are full of unfulfilled ambitions;
nubians wax and wane, nubians love to complain;
nubians love to hear themselves talk, but hate to explain.
nubians love being another man's judge and jury,
nubians procrastinate till it's time to worry.
nubians love to be late, nubians hate to hurry....
Black Entertainment Television is the worst thing i've seen in my life!
...Usher, Michael Jackson is not a genre of music!...
I've seen what's around the corner,
I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you,
You nubians have nothing to celebrate."


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-28 12:44:55 PM  
Frank N Stein:

You're not paying attention if you think crack sentencing has NO disparate racial impact.

White Johnny from the 'burbs gets into rehab, while the inner city kid gets a ten year minimum...for basically the SAME drug.
 
2013-08-28 12:46:37 PM  

INeedAName: When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statistically overwhelming lengths of time, and at unheard of rates.


This had jack to do with anything, crime rates were high well before that. The reasons had to do with welfare and it's requirements for qualification. A household with a Father, especially a married Father was far more difficult to qualify for welfare payments. The net result is that in order to get on welfare you had to have a family without a Father.

Before these requirements historic rates of marriage among black woman were actually higher than white women. The result in some cities was an entire generation of young people growing up in single household families without a role model that held a job. Now you can make arguments that this was considered necessary due to a lack of jobs or other socioeconomic factors, however that is an entirely different issue.
 
2013-08-28 12:50:33 PM  

jso2897: Witty Comment: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.

No, I'm not. I'm chastising you. Why are you trying to deflect onto another person? Furthermore, why are you trying to give the impression that I'm saying it's okay to be racist? Even beyond that, where did you GET that impression? You need to EDUCATE people to change their minds, it's the only way. You're pointing fingers and screaming racist.

And I hope you recognize the irony of classifying people who you judge to be judgmental of another persons color of skin by designating them a color and marginalizing them.

I will put it to you bluntly, and simply - so that even a child can understand: The descendants of the enslavers don't get to tell the descendents of the enslaved when racism is "over".


No, but neither do the descendants of the enslaved get to blame everything on people who had nothing to do with slavery for all eternity, either.

And for the reparations crowd, compare the average standard of living for a black family here in the U.S. with the average standard of living in Africa.  Slavery did suck, but it's over.  Combat real, existing racism?  Sure.  But blame whitey for all your problems, forever?  not so helpful.

As a white person, I am more than content with the privilege I have inherited in America, and I respect it's cost. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. We got born on third base, dude - we didn't hit no triple. Act and react accordingly.

I certainly got born on third base..but some poor white kid in Appalachia?
I don't think so.
 
2013-08-28 12:54:52 PM  

onyxruby: INeedAName: When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statistically overwhelming lengths of time, and at unheard of rates.

This had jack to do with anything, crime rates were high well before that. The reasons had to do with welfare and it's requirements for qualification. A household with a Father, especially a married Father was far more difficult to qualify for welfare payments. The net result is that in order to get on welfare you had to have a family without a Father.

Before these requirements historic rates of marriage among black woman were actually higher than white women. The result in some cities was an entire generation of young people growing up in single household families without a role model that held a job. Now you can make arguments that this was considered necessary due to a lack of jobs or other socioeconomic factors, however that is an entirely different issue.


Didn't read your own link, did you?

"Structural factors in society, such as mass incarceration and drug policies have also beenlinked to family formation patterns in black families and may explain variations in marriageacross the last century."
 
2013-08-28 02:22:06 PM  

Warlordtrooper: gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.

If you give a public presentation in a public venue you have no reasonable expectation that somebody won't be able to record your words and replay them.


So is your position that the law was poorly applied?  Because mine is that the family is fine for claiming the rights that have been given to them by law.
 
2013-08-28 02:39:02 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud

[540x720 from http://i.imgur.com/KU4Lh0c.jpg image 540x720]

You're really proud of this, right...?


I could post crime rate statistics, but then I'd feel bad you wouldn't have anything to post in return
 
2013-08-28 03:35:50 PM  
i1180.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-28 03:44:38 PM  

nocturnal001: On top of this Churchill was a politician, so there is an argument that his speeches are more likely to be public domain.

But yeah, obviously this is about a black family "being all greedy and buying rims". God forbid that companies use his speech for free. Now, if King's family were saints they would collect the royalties and donate to charity but I don't think anyone in our society has a leg to stand on for that argument. I can also argue that making a few bucks off of King's work is a pretty shiatty form of compensation for having your grandfather murdered for trying to spread equality.

I don't even particularly like my grandfather, and I wouldn't trade a large sum of money for his death.


Thanks! Well said.
 
2013-08-28 03:48:06 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: I could post crime rate statistics, but then I'd feel bad you wouldn't have anything to post in return


You're proud of this guy too, right?

media.zuza.com

Look, they're even flashing gang signs!
 
2013-08-28 03:50:17 PM  
If the King Estate wasn't callously in it for the money, wouldn't a fair compromise be to allow the speech to be used only in educational purposes for (gasp) free? Isn't that what MLK would have wanted?
 
2013-08-28 04:00:51 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: King would be proud


Assuming people judge that guy because he is an idiot rather than becauae he is black...yeah then he would be.

Of course that isn't wholy the case is it?
 
2013-08-28 05:38:55 PM  

gonegirl: Warlordtrooper: gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.

If you give a public presentation in a public venue you have no reasonable expectation that somebody won't be able to record your words and replay them.

So is your position that the law was poorly applied?  Because mine is that the family is fine for claiming the rights that have been given to them by law.


Do you believe that you have a complete expectation of privacy when out in public?
 
2013-08-28 05:46:33 PM  

Warlordtrooper: gonegirl: Warlordtrooper: gonegirl: Meh.  Every so often, there's whiny outrage over MLK's family establishing their legal rights.  This right allows them to, for example, make sure that his likeness doesn't end up being used to sell Coca-Cola.  Or beer.  I think this is good.

And they want money for his words to be used.  You know what?  After decades of this country's commercial media completely farking over black citizens - where'd you get those songs from, Elvis? - I find it hard to care about one black man's family demanding to be paid for the things he created.

If you give a public presentation in a public venue you have no reasonable expectation that somebody won't be able to record your words and replay them.

So is your position that the law was poorly applied?  Because mine is that the family is fine for claiming the rights that have been given to them by law.

Do you believe that you have a complete expectation of privacy when out in public?


Do you believe that copyright has been poorly applied in this case?  I think that the individuals claiming ownership are doing well to claim every single right that has already been awarded them by the courts.  Do you have an argument against the specific judgment used in this copyright case, or do you just like to ask questions?
 
2013-08-28 06:27:24 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: Satanic_Hamster: ThatDarkFellow: [608x650 from http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2012/10/Lil-Wayne1-608x650.jpg image 608x650]

King would be proud

[540x720 from http://i.imgur.com/KU4Lh0c.jpg image 540x720]

You're really proud of this, right...?

I could post crime rate statistics, but then I'd feel bad you wouldn't have anything to post in return


Nothing in return? How about disproportionate arrest rates against minorities despite evidence to suggest whites are just as or more likely to be committing the same crime? How about disproportionate arrests of the impoverished versus the affluent?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06disparities.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, white folks carry drugs and guns more often than blacks:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-sto pp ed-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minor ities/ 

Whoops! Our police/justice system is inherently racist, even if it's subtle and based on stereotypes of class rather than race (because minorities are more likely to be poor - seeing the connection yet?). But be proud of your own racism.
 
2013-08-28 06:33:07 PM  
cinemaelectronica.files.wordpress.com

Disapproving stone MLK is disapproving.
 
2013-08-28 07:58:10 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

You're actually comparing the two? Sigh. Where to start,

I know... I never did like the civil rights ride... it was always too bloody and I always hurt afterwards.


It probably wouldn't hurt so much if you just sat in the back of the bus.
 
2013-08-28 08:43:49 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ThatDarkFellow: I could post crime rate statistics, but then I'd feel bad you wouldn't have anything to post in return

You're proud of this guy too, right?

[360x270 from http://media.zuza.com/2/7/2782ec73-ebb2-4a84-adcd-71f738febe2e/VagosPi gRoast___Content.jpg image 360x270]

Look, they're even flashing gang signs!


Cursorily glancing at that pic, I honestly thought they were garbage men.
 
2013-08-28 09:01:50 PM  

PunGent: onyxruby: INeedAName: When laws were passed to enact mandatory sentencing for crack cocaine (which more black people had access to) at a significantly larger rate that powdered cocaine (more of a white person's drug) than large portions of young black men ended up in prison for statistically overwhelming lengths of time, and at unheard of rates.

This had jack to do with anything, crime rates were high well before that. The reasons had to do with welfare and it's requirements for qualification. A household with a Father, especially a married Father was far more difficult to qualify for welfare payments. The net result is that in order to get on welfare you had to have a family without a Father.

Before these requirements historic rates of marriage among black woman were actually higher than white women. The result in some cities was an entire generation of young people growing up in single household families without a role model that held a job. Now you can make arguments that this was considered necessary due to a lack of jobs or other socioeconomic factors, however that is an entirely different issue.

Didn't read your own link, did you?

"Structural factors in society, such as mass incarceration and drug policies have also beenlinked to family formation patterns in black families and may explain variations in marriageacross the last century."


STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!!!!
 
2013-08-28 09:17:15 PM  

Precision Boobery: Cursorily glancing at that pic, I honestly thought they were garbage men.


They might be.
 
2013-08-28 09:57:25 PM  

Maud Dib: KimNorth: Money was raised to build the statue of MLK on the National Monument and they were all ready to go, had raised enough money. Then here comes the family demanding their cut. The family had already been paid over $700,000 thousand since 2003 from the non profit for permission to use MLK's image and words. The family now wanted $800 thousand more or they would stop the project. I don't know if they ever got it. Maybe they did somehow and that is why they had to outsource the project to China.... :)

This is so farking retard and wrong, I don't know where to start.
I'll go with, you can obviously count to potato.

[480x360 from http://i.imgur.com/dI47h.jpg image 480x360]


Do you know what Google is? Potato it then.....
 
2013-08-29 12:06:26 AM  

nocturnal001: Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: He knew that his life would most likely be cut tragically short, in fact, he mentioned it almost prophetically in his final speech. If you're a poor, black widow living during that time, it's going to be very, very rough on you, and he made sure that his family was supported by his work. I have nothing but respect for that decision.

It was copyrighted after his death.

You didn't even read the article, did you: "A few months after King delivered the speech, he sent a copy of the address to the U.S. Copyright office and listed the remarks as a "work not reproduced for sale." "

Not according to every other source I've looked at.

That is also irrelevant.  Copyright protection is intrinsic, it doesn't need to be filed like a patent.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1,Copyright Basics, section "."


Actually, at the time of the "I Have A Dream" speech, copyright protection was NOT automatic--the US was not yet a signatory to the Berne Convention, and copyright law before 1976 operated MUCH differently to copyright law nowadays.

In fact, before 1976 the US did NOT recognise copyright-on-creation in the traditional sense, but required works to be formally registered with the Office of Copyright before being considered copyrighted and thus subject to copying restrictions.  The closest thing that existed to "copyright-on-creation" before then in the US was a rough recognition under common law that a person could restrict an initial publishing of their own work but NOT subsequent publishings--basically, after they published something in any form, others were free to copy/fold/spindle/mutilate as they saw fit.  Not only this, but different STATES also had their own state copyright boards as well--so one had to get both a federal copyright registered and often a STATE copyright registered as well.

(The closest parallel to how copyright law was interpreted re unregistered works is probably something akin to Creative Commons licensing, but even CC licensing does require credit be given to the original creator.  Another potential comparison would be to a BSD-like license.)

In fact, the copyright laws of the US (and fundamental copyright laws of a number of Latin American countries that explicitly modeled their copyright laws after US law, and--ironically--Warsaw Pact nations like the USSR) were seen as so fundamentally incompatible with the Berne Convention on Copyright that UNESCO actually had to operate a separate international treaty for non-Berne signatories for the better part of 40 years so that US and Latin American works could get international copyright protection (yes, the laws were SO incompatible that without this convention the likes of Mickey Mouse were public domain in Berne signatory countries--and vice versa, the likes of Dr. Who would not have received legal protection in the US without this treaty; in fact, before 1955 the US did NOT legally recognise international copyright law at ALL and required all works to be explicitly registered and printed in the US to receive copyright protection).

It pretty much took a major change in US copyright law in 1976 to make the existing copyright law Berne-compatible (and there are still arguments to this day over whether the changes were in fact constitutional--the Constitution itself makes some pretty explicit provisions as to copyright law that are not necessarily compatible with the Berne Convention) and which--whilst doing some good things like "copyrighted-on-creation"--also did some bad things like setting the cycle in place for Perpetual Copyright.  The US FINALLY became a full signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989 after a number of other amendments (which, interestingly, also for the first time allowed copyright status to anonymously published works).

The scary thing is, we STILL don't have the worst implementation of copyright law in regards to Ludicrously Long Periods Of Protection.  The House of Mouse may WANT Perpetual Copyright, but it doesn't have it yet; ironically, one of the few companies the House of Mouse DOES have to pay royalties to re a copyrighted property (and which said property HAS sued Disney over) does have literally perpetual copyright under British law.

(Peter Pan, or more properly Peter Pan and Wendy and all derivative works based on it, have a permanent and perpetual copyright in the UK owned by the Hospital for Sick Children in London (whom was willed the copyright to Peter and Wendy upon Sir James Barrie's death) and all performances of Peter Pan-related material--yes, including the Disney movies--must legally pay royalties to aforementioned kid's hospital when done in the UK.  The Disney movie was made when the books were legally in the public domain in the US (and in fact just before the US started recognising international copyright law at all), and were QUITE rudely awakened to the fact the work will never be in the public domain in the UK when aforementioned children's hospital wanted to know where the hell their royalty checks were for showings of the Disney film in the UK.)

And interestingly, Disney also shows just HOW badly things could get munged with the combination of the US requiring (before 1976) registration of copyright, NOT recognising foreign copyrights registered before 1955, and pushing for their own perpetual copyrights along with a US rights-holder that is not related to the international rights-holder.  To put none to fine on it, there is a hell of an ongoing international custody battle that has raged for the past decade or two over just WHO has the US and international rights to Winnie-The-Pooh and A. A. Milne's works in general.  A. A. Milne and his wife licensed the characters and books to Stephen Slesinger for US$1000 for publication in the US and Canada (which, by the laws of the time, actually made Slesinger the copyright holder, NOT Milne); Slesinger's wife (who owned the American rights by that point) and A. A. Milne's wife (who owned the international rights to things like movie licensing) proceeded to license Disney in 1961; Wacky Hijinks proceeded to ensue where almost all rights seem to have somehow been licensed to Disney; and since the early 1990s the Sleisinger Estate and the Milne Estate have been taking turns suing Disney for royalties and/or suing each other for licensing violations; the Milne estate has also been suing trying to get A. A. Milne recognised as the actual copyright owner for Winnie-The-Pooh related stuff (as crazy as it sounds, under present law and US court decisions technically Disney may now hold primary copyright in the US) so they can get royalties.  To say that the copyright situation surrounding a certain yellow bear of little brain is a complete and utter fustercluck is putting it MILDLY.
 
2013-08-29 12:56:18 AM  

nocturnal001: monoski: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.

I heard an NPR interview with a Churchill biographer a while back. Apparently, he had to pay for every quote he used from one of Churchill's speeches, even though they were given as part of his public position.

That is different Churchill is white and according the posts in this thread black people getting paid for one of the most important speaches in the history of this country is some sort of travesty or rip off.


On top of this Churchill was a politician, so there is an argument that his speeches are more likely to be public domain.

...

not necessarily, due to the fact he was a BRITISH politician.

In the US, we have a setup where government-published works are considered to be in the public domain.  This is most decidedly not the case in other countries, and definitely not so in Commonwealth countries (not just the UK, but Canada, Newfoundland (which was, back then, its own dominion--Newfieland was not yet part of Canuckistan and would not be until after WW II...hence that bit you hear in Hockey Night in Canada "heritage intros" from the radio versions where it explicitly welcomes not only Canadians but "listeners in the United States and Newfoundland"), India (still not independent at the time), Australia, New Zealand, and pretty much everywhere else that still had a King George VI as State Figurehead at the time).

Instead of putting government documents in the public domain, most government documents are given what is termed "crown copyright"--which is a nice way of saying that (as State Figurehead) the reigning King or Queen is technically the copyright holder, and technically holds copyright over government works done by the Royal House or anyone working for the British government under the direction of the Sovereign (Winston Churchill, as PM, would have qualified--as would all members of Parliament and all Parliamentary proceedings).

How crown copyright tends to be implemented DOES vary from nation to nation (and in the case of Canada, from province to province); in Canuckistan it tends to essentially follow rules similar to a CC BY-NC-ND Creative Commons license (basically reproduction for personal and noncommercial use IS allowed, but attribution must be given, it must be copied accurately, and a note must be given that this is not an official copy; commercial copying is prohibited without permission of the Queen's Printer), whilst in the UK crown copyright operates more similarly to conventional copyright (in that the British government in right of the Queen can restrict publication of government works to the Queen's Printer).

There is also (similarly to how formerly existed in US copyright law) a distinction between "published" and "unpublished" works in pre-Berne-Convention crown copyright works; this is (again) a holdover from the days of common-law copyright law and whether or not a work was formerly registered as being under crown copyright (in the UK, the concept of common-law copyright was formally abolished in 1911 as part of joining the Berne Convention and establishing "copyrighted-when-created" as the basis of copyright law; the "unpublished" works were actually grandfathered in as having a perpetual crown copyright, but this has since changed to most unpublished crown copyright works going into the public domain as of 2040).  There is apparently still SOME legal distinction between "published" and "unpublished" crown copyright works (I am presuming whether or not they have been publically published formally, as opposed to being registered) and there are still legal differences between how these are treated.

That said, and getting back to Churchill--Under British copyright law of the time (including crown copyright), technically all of Winston Churchill's speeches (both to Parliament and on the BBC) would have technically been under crown copyright (in right of the King); whether his speeches are in or out of crown copyright at this point depends on whether they are considered "published" or "unpublished".  If they are considered "published" by right of being printed in Acts of Parliament and/or broadcast on the Beeb, it's likely his speeches are in public domain (as crown copyright on published works expires in 50 years from publication); otherwise, they'll all be in the public domain around 2071 or so (as unpublished crown copyright works do have a lifetime of 125 years from creation).

Where it gets hairy--there IS essentially a concept in crown copyright law where a work can be essentially done as a work of hire for the Sovereign where longer copyright laws apply.  If an author privately creates a work and then transfers the copyright to the King or Queen, for instance, the usual "life plus 25 years" applies; it's also possible for the Queen to singlehandedly place crown copyright documents in the public domain, usually if they're old and unpublished.

And yes, there's even MOAR complications--there's such a thing as a "Letter of Patent" that allows the Sovereign to place a document or documents under perpetual copyright and/or copying restrictions outside of the scope of normal copyright law.  (The primary works that fall under this are the King James Bible as published by the Church of England, the CoE Book of Prayer as published in the UK, and other liturgical material of the Church of England; these are under copyright of the Queen via letters patent as part of her duties as the titular head of the CoE, not just conventional crown copyright.)

Not necessarily applying to the matter of Churchill (but maybe applying in future investigations of, say, British actions in Gulf War II) is the fact that recently Parliamentary papers and proceedings have been forked off into their OWN variation of crown copyright following the same rules ("Parliamentary Copyright" since 1988--basically instead of everything being "in right of the Queen" things are "in right of the Parliament").  Everything before 1988 is still considered crown copyright or (if crown copyright has expired) public domain, though. :3

In the US, the writings of Churchill are in...a decidedly murky and grey area of copyright :D  Technically the US did not even RECOGNISE international copyright law until 1955 and there were NO grandfather provisions for works published before that date; it's questionable whether Churchill's speeches would have ever been considered copyrighted in the US, and it's entirely possible they've always been in the public domain here (NOT because his speeches were done by a government, but because we didn't recognise ANY foreign copyrights before 1955, "crown copyright" is a squidgy concept that has no parallel under US law and probably would not have been legally recognised before the Berne Convention came into place, the US became a Berne signatory just AFTER Churchill's speeches would have gone into the public domain in the UK (assuming that they would legally have been classified as a published work under crown copyright), and I have my very serious doubts that King George VI deigned to register Churchill's speeches with the Library of Congress between 1939 and 1955 nor did he license an agent to manage US rights).

Have I mentioned that US copyright law before 1955 was generally considered 31 Flavours of Stupid by the rest of the world, and was pretty much considered "learning to recognise there are other countries with distinct laws and cultures" before 1989 or so?
 
2013-08-29 10:36:40 AM  

Great Porn Dragon: nocturnal001: monoski: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Mugato: Just curious, how many other speeches have been copyrighted with families making money off of them? Honest question.

I heard an NPR interview with a Churchill biographer a while back. Apparently, he had to pay for every quote he used from one of Churchill's speeches, even though they were given as part of his public position.

That is different Churchill is white and according the posts in this thread black people getting paid for one of the most important speaches in the history of this country is some sort of travesty or rip off.


On top of this Churchill was a politician, so there is an argument that his speeches are more likely to be public domain.

...not necessarily, due to the fact he was a BRITISH politician.


Good stuff I wasn't aware of. But of course I knew he British...I'm not retarded.  He wasn't my example, but I was merely pointing out that aside from the law (I know zero about British copyright law) you could make an argument that his works belong to the citizens of the UK.

 nocturnal001: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I never said I was ignoring them. They go in gray 4, with a tag. Lots of people on fark tag posters to remind them who certain people are. And I've been contributing to the conversation, only to be told I'm full of "white guilt" for thinking that Martin Luther King Jr.'s family has the right to make money from his creative works the same way that Walt Disney's family continues to profit from his.

Are you chastising the idiot that said that? No. It's a huge double standard. It's okay to be racist, but the people who point out that other people are racist are the real problem. Because racists are such delicate little flowers or something.


How dare they make money from that piece of intellectual property!  It should be public domain so that media companies can use it to make money instead!
BRB, I'm going to go chastise some people about how immoral they are for pirating an MP3 because I worship corporations for some reason and despise civil right's leaders.

I agree... it's not like it was an historical event with any impact on history... I think we should also copyright the US Constitution and Bill of Rights...


So any intellectual property that has impacted history is now public domain?

I guess I can stop feeling bad about pirating that copy of Thriller a few years back.  As the most successful album of all time it had a huge impact on the world and therefore I should not have to pay money to hear it.
 
2013-08-29 12:24:44 PM  

nocturnal001: I guess I can stop feeling bad about pirating that copy of Thriller a few years back.


You actually should still feel pretty bad about that, just not for the reason you're suggesting...
 
2013-08-29 12:36:31 PM  

Loaf's Tray: nocturnal001: I guess I can stop feeling bad about pirating that copy of Thriller a few years back.

You actually should still feel pretty bad about that, just not for the reason you're suggesting...


Ha, hey a few of those are classics. (if slightly before my time(
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report