Then protesting is protesting, whether you're protesting for people to be killed for being gay, or protesting for people to be killed for glorifying homophobic killings.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps we agree or perhaps we do not, but it's unclear to me.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the supreme court has upheld restrictions on various forms of protest based on their tendency to provoke or incite violence. it's called the "fighting words" doctrine. you can't yell fire in a movie theater. you have to maintain certain distances from abortion clinics. i think harassing a bereaved family who lost a loved one with signs saying "thank god for ied's" could pretty easily and comfortably fit under the fighting words and inciting violence response. they should be shut down or dispersed or learn to protest/demonstrate respectfully.
I don't think I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in this case.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't think I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in this case.
i think there is a difference between protests intended to raise awareness and protests intended to provoke. the latter seem unacceptable to me. sure violence it worse, but that doesnt make this ok and their "protest" is glorifying and promoting violence.
i think there is a difference between protests intended to raise awareness and protests intended to provoke. the latter seem unacceptable to me. sure violence it worse, but that doesnt make this ok and their "protest" is glorifying and promoting violence.
Those World Bank protesters seem intent on provoking me when they block my way to work and shout obscenities at me. Along with the destruction they cause in my neighborhood every time there is a meeting, I would say they are just about as respectful as the wastes of breath mentioned in the original article. Would you take away their right to protest as well?
Those World Bank protesters seem intent on provoking me when they block my way to work and shout obscenities at me. Along with the destruction they cause in my neighborhood every time there is a meeting, I would say they are just about as respectful as the wastes of breath mentioned in the original article. Would you take away their right to protest as well?
it would depend on what you mean by provoke. are they calling for your death? do you work in a world bank building? if you're just talking about jackass protesters causing traffic jams and being rude, then no, that does not equal provoking. if you work there and they are clearly targeting you and praising violence against you as these protesters are, then yes, they should not be able to protest.
i think there is a difference between protests intended to raise awareness and protests intended to provoke. the latter seem unacceptable to me. sure violence it worse, but that doesnt make this ok and their "protest" is glorifying and promoting violence.
It's difficult to measure intent, though. Misused, that could become censorship of opposing views. I tend to think we should err on the side of free speech... even if, like in this case, it's deplorable.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
it would depend on what you mean by provoke. are they calling for your death? do you work in a world bank building? if you're just talking about jackass protesters causing traffic jams and being rude, then no, that does not equal provoking. if you work there and they are clearly targeting you and praising violence against you as these protesters are, then yes, they should not be able to protest.
I'm talking about the jackasses who block the roads, overturn all newspaper vending machines and act in otherwise selfish and povocative way. I have seen them throwing and hurling threats at the busses carrying people in there.
In all honesty, I agree with their right to protest. It is a thin line between the World Bank children and these dumbasses.
Usually I'd agree with you, BUT... These whack offs need some sense knocked into them. How they justify deaths of our soldiers as punishment from their "god" for OTHER PEOPLE being gay/lesbian is way fucking beyond me. These guys are a fucking joke and I'd have no problem kicking their ass. Like I said earlier, this is a SPECIAL CASE.
I'd say they have every right to express their opinions. But I also think that the family of the diseased (sp?) should have every right to sue for harassment. And win. That the funeral was for a soldier is irrelevant. All people bron and raised in the west, and particularly supposed christians, would know how tasteless, wrong and basically immoral it would be to intervene in this manner at a funeral. Everyone knows one shall respect funerals, and that it is an important part of the grieving process for the relatives and friends.
Freedom of speech is well and good, but there is a line to what people can say and do where it stops being about free speech and expressing opinions, and enter the territory of harassment and libel. This group I'd say qualify for a lawsuit, and public condemnation.
There is no need to take actions to prevent these kinds of things, as laws already in place will cover it quite nicely. The family harassed would be in the right to sue, if they so wish.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps we agree or perhaps we do not, but it's unclear to me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I don't think I agree with the Supreme Court's opinion in this case.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think there is a difference between protests intended to raise awareness and protests intended to provoke. the latter seem unacceptable to me. sure violence it worse, but that doesnt make this ok and their "protest" is glorifying and promoting violence.
Those World Bank protesters seem intent on provoking me when they block my way to work and shout obscenities at me. Along with the destruction they cause in my neighborhood every time there is a meeting, I would say they are just about as respectful as the wastes of breath mentioned in the original article. Would you take away their right to protest as well?
it would depend on what you mean by provoke. are they calling for your death? do you work in a world bank building? if you're just talking about jackass protesters causing traffic jams and being rude, then no, that does not equal provoking. if you work there and they are clearly targeting you and praising violence against you as these protesters are, then yes, they should not be able to protest.
It's difficult to measure intent, though. Misused, that could become censorship of opposing views. I tend to think we should err on the side of free speech... even if, like in this case, it's deplorable.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm talking about the jackasses who block the roads, overturn all newspaper vending machines and act in otherwise selfish and povocative way. I have seen them throwing and hurling threats at the busses carrying people in there.
In all honesty, I agree with their right to protest. It is a thin line between the World Bank children and these dumbasses.
Usually I'd agree with you, BUT... These whack offs need some sense knocked into them. How they justify deaths of our soldiers as punishment from their "god" for OTHER PEOPLE being gay/lesbian is way fucking beyond me. These guys are a fucking joke and I'd have no problem kicking their ass. Like I said earlier, this is a SPECIAL CASE.
Freedom of speech is well and good, but there is a line to what people can say and do where it stops being about free speech and expressing opinions, and enter the territory of harassment and libel. This group I'd say qualify for a lawsuit, and public condemnation.
There is no need to take actions to prevent these kinds of things, as laws already in place will cover it quite nicely. The family harassed would be in the right to sue, if they so wish.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965