Cancelled!

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. 

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). 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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...