Cancelled!

Parksy

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Halifax2TheMax

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Speech has consequences. The voters can vote him out or members of the public can shout shame at him while he sits at a table in a restaurant trying to enjoy his meal. Or any other public place.

Go Beavers

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

I’m having a hard time following your train of thought. You see it analogous to “I’m not a racist but” and at the same time you agree with her? It’s essentially a workplace, and certain language and statements aren’t tolerated. Typically because adults are expected to follow social norms. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights until the government decides to make certain speech illegal (making threats, etc). 

Parksy

Go Beavers said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

I’m having a hard time following your train of thought. You see it analogous to “I’m not a racist but” and at the same time you agree with her? It’s essentially a workplace, and certain language and statements aren’t tolerated. Typically because adults are expected to follow social norms. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights until the government decides to make certain speech illegal (making threats, etc). 

So I guess what I'm intrigued by is the lady's need to cite 'Hey I'm all for Free Speech... however...'  Drawing that unnecessary parallel is well... unnecessary.  To me it's like she's trying to be for and against something at the same time. 

She could have just said 'what he said is wrong and there should be consequences.' 

Merkin Baller

I understand freedom of speech to mean the government can’t punish an individual for speech. My company however, a private corporation can fire me for my speech. They have a code of standards / ethics they expect me to uphold, which is their right. Should a governing body not similarly have a code of standards / ethics for their members? 

mickeyrat

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Parksy

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

remarkably out of bounds.  I agree with everything she said in response... I just don't get her need to announce before she goes into her opinion her stance on Free Speech.  

If anything, I'm surprised they (State Legislation) don't have a code of conduct and/or workplace harassment policy in place that could be enforced here.  What the doosh said to me would certainly fall under workplace harassment. 

mickeyrat

Parksy said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

remarkably out of bounds.  I agree with everything she said in response... I just don't get her need to announce before she goes into her opinion her stance on Free Speech.  

If anything, I'm surprised they (State Legislation) don't have a code of conduct and/or workplace harassment policy in place that could be enforced here.  What the doosh said to me would certainly fall under workplace harassment. 

She is D in a R majority senate. And they aren't rules of decorum as she stated.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.

I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.

I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.

so bravo to her for calling it out,  because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.

now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.

I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.

so bravo to her for calling it out,  because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.

now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.

In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?

mace1229

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.

I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.

so bravo to her for calling it out,  because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.

now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.

In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?

I was thinking the same thing. They are kind of proving his point, if an adult is being sexual harassed by having this book read to her, maybe it shouldn't be part of the school curriculum? My guess is there will be future lawsuits for harassing students forcing them to read this book if this goes through.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with his strategy, but it's kind of hard to argue against his point. 

gimmesometruth27

"that makes me a saaaaaad panda...."

tempo_n_groove

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

Parksy said:

I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped.  He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc.    I watching the video... it's pretty fucked. 

The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning. 

One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this... 

Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:

"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it)  But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between  appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."

This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..."  and then proceed to say something racist. 

I believe in Free Speech. 
What he said is protected speech. 
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.

(???) 

I don't disagree with her... by any means.  But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."  

Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech.  Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating. 

Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?

the State senator doing the reading was,  to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.

Then the book should be out of bounds too.

You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.

oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?

no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business,  on the record.

Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.

I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.

so bravo to her for calling it out,  because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.

now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.

In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?

I was thinking the same thing. They are kind of proving his point, if an adult is being sexual harassed by having this book read to her, maybe it shouldn't be part of the school curriculum? My guess is there will be future lawsuits for harassing students forcing them to read this book if this goes through.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with his strategy, but it's kind of hard to argue against his point. 

Is reading a book out loud sexual harassment?  Wow.

It's not libel but you are right.  If you take it to that level then I guess everything is offensive and we should all sue each other whenever we speak.

mickeyrat

pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.

so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?

one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School?  Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.

I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.

so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?

one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School?  Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.

I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.

if mace works in a red district, they may nominate him for congress...

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.

so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?

one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School?  Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.

I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.

I wouldn't read a book like that out loud at work with or without inserting a name. I doubt you would either. 
I already agreed that it was bad and he should not have done that. So I'm unsure what your point was by asking that.
I read the description, but I originally took it as he just kept calling her name and reading it to her. But reading it again it sound like he made her the character in the book? 
My only point was is if it's that offensive, where reading it out loud (inserting a name or not) rises to the level of sexual harassment, then maybe it doesn't belong in a school. There ar millions of other books available. I can't say I disagree. If the words on those pages equate to sexual harassment, then maybe they shouldn't be available to 13 and 14 year olds. You can't give a kid a Tylenol without parent permission, you can't discuss religion or politics from a personal perspective because the kids can't handle it, but you can have them read what some consider sexual harassment when read aloud?

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

mickeyrat said:

pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.

so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?

one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School?  Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.

I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.

if mace works in a red district, they may nominate him for congress...

So I can count on you for your vote?