kelel01 1 #1 November 22, 2006 Hate speech is, in essence, protected by the first amendment. This morning, on "Good Morning, America", one of the people verbally attacked by Michael Richards said, "I think freedom of speech should have limits." Agree or disagree? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 November 22, 2006 Other than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 November 22, 2006 QuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! How about libel? Graphic porn on billboards? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 November 22, 2006 QuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! Agreed. That guarantee, embodied in the First Amendment, is one of the GOOD things that separates the US from all the other Western-style democracies, and I'm rather proud of that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #5 November 22, 2006 I see a few people have said yes. Why, and where do you draw the line? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #6 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! How about libel? Graphic porn on billboards? Libel is not subject to prior restraint in the US. And it can never be criminalized in the US (i.e., without amending the Constitution first). Porn - good point - it's a grey area that's been hotly debated in the US since before most of us were born. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 November 22, 2006 The poll really needs more options than a simple yes or no. No soup for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #8 November 22, 2006 No, it shouldn't. It should either have limits or not. Where the line is is irrelevant. Because I don't think there should be one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #9 November 22, 2006 They were free to heckle him yet scoff at the verbal volley. Richards could had chose his words more wisely and turned it around on them yet, if speech had limits we all would be in prison for poor choices in what we say at times. I was not at all amazed to see how fast a sleazy lawyer got involved with her eyes on a big fat pay day. Two wrongs do not make a right. Richards had the right per the 1st amendment (although his choice of words were wrong), did not break any law, they were not injured and he apoligized for what he said. Does not amount to a frivolous lawsuit. Limits are for those who enjoy the security of a cage."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! QuoteHow about libel? I don't view libel as a freedom of speech issue. Libel simply makes a person responsible for what they write. QuoteGraphic porn on billboards? That's a tougher one. I don't think graphic images of anything such as aborted babies, porn etc. are the same as speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #11 November 22, 2006 No. Free speech means the ability for both Fred Phelps and Larry Flynt to say whatever they want.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 November 22, 2006 I agree with you. Richards has the right to say whatever he wants. His fans have the right to pay to hear him or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelel01 1 #13 November 22, 2006 I agree with that 100%. I also believe "You don't have the right not to be offended." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #14 November 22, 2006 Freedom of speech already has its limits. Just look at what the guy is going through.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #15 November 22, 2006 Speaking of Richards, you know what surprises me? Instead of saying, "Gee, I snapped, I don't know what got into me," why didn't he just do what other standup comics do, which is to claim that he was just following the Lenny Bruce tradition of saying shocking, taboo things during his standup routine as a way of reaching his audience, and it simply flopped? Would have at least had some plausibility to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelel01 1 #16 November 22, 2006 Exactly. Let society provide the repercussions - not the law. And the thought of those guys getting paid for him saying that to them makes me angry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #17 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! Agreed. That guarantee, embodied in the First Amendment, is one of the GOOD things that separates the US from all the other Western-style democracies, and I'm rather proud of that. Too bad we don't HAVE that guarantee anymore.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #18 November 22, 2006 QuoteFreedom of speech already has its limits. Just look at what the guy is going through. Agreed. What bother me is that what Richards did is in the realm of comedy. The guy screwed up, give him a break. No need to crucify the poor bastard. I wonder how the general public would've react if he busted out the Aristocrats joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dbattman 0 #19 November 22, 2006 That lawyer on the Today Show video was the best part of this whole thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #20 November 22, 2006 QuoteLet society provide the repercussions - not the law. Let the individuals themselves use courtesy to impose limits on themselves. IF that doesn't work, then let society do it. I don't like the whole jumping straight to society - it doesn't take a village to learn courtesy. On the other side of the coin, nor should it take a village for others to not have thin skins either. IF that doesn't work, then we can have this conversation. I voted yes - but I consider self restraint (in terms of speaking and listening reaction) to be a form of limit. And people don't seem to understand this even a TINY bit - we have a bunch of incourteous loudmouths skreeching at a bunch of thin skinned jerks. So I voted yes. I would NOT vote to 'legislate' limits, that would be validating Politically Correct thuggery. So which do you mean then? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelel01 1 #21 November 22, 2006 I meant legally-imposed ones - but I also include monetary compensation deemed necessary in a court of law in that definition - not merely legislation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #22 November 22, 2006 Then I'd say 'no'. Especially with any single party in control of both houses in congress? What wierd ass crap will be legislated that we can't say in public? If the parties were in conflict? Reps in the senate and Dems in the house, then at least the results could be better with the nutters cancelling each other out, but still, I don't like the idea trying to legislate courtesy in speech. Plus it would just be a mad rush to propose and then furiously debate and pose, and then NOT vote on tons of proposals as congressmen put out impotent bills designed to kiss up to whatever typical biases are present in their voting districts. Monetary compensation? For hurting someone's feelings? other than slander and liable, that's pretty sad too. BUT THINK OF THE TAX REVENUE, under the Dems, if someone uses the word "Father, Dad, or Pop" in a speech, they get fined $100 per. under the Reps, if someone uses the word "peace, entitlement, or withdraw (various meanings)" they get fined $100 per. Think of how that would shore up the Senate medical and dental plans........ ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dbattman 0 #23 November 22, 2006 We already have legally-imposed limits. It's called slander. Now if he was up there on stage telling the audience that these guys were terrible doctors that couldn't stitch up a cut because they were cross-eyed there would be a case there. In this case he's just being an insulting jerk. If one of the guys hauled off and decked him right off stage I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see them charged with assault because he asked for it, but that's another issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eflynn 0 #24 November 22, 2006 Because it's obvious he meant what he said. A boldface lie like that would have simply added more shit to the storm. Making an off color remark about another race is something 99% of people have done. What he did was completely different. He got upset at a heckler, which incidentally comes along with doing standup, and said the things he usually just thinks. He's not an 8 year old child who didn't get the transformer he wanted for christmas. He's a grown man who knew what he was doing, what he was saying, who he was saying it to, and where he said it. Here's what they think of you... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #25 November 22, 2006 QuoteSpeaking of Richards, you know what surprises me? Instead of saying, "Gee, I snapped, I don't know what got into me," why didn't he just do what other standup comics do, which is to claim that he was just following the Lenny Bruce tradition of saying shocking, taboo things during his standup routine as a way of reaching his audience, and it simply flopped? Would have at least had some plausibility to it. Or gotten into his Kramer persona and simply said "What, and you thought I was serious?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
ExAFO 0 #11 November 22, 2006 No. Free speech means the ability for both Fred Phelps and Larry Flynt to say whatever they want.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 November 22, 2006 I agree with you. Richards has the right to say whatever he wants. His fans have the right to pay to hear him or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #13 November 22, 2006 I agree with that 100%. I also believe "You don't have the right not to be offended." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #14 November 22, 2006 Freedom of speech already has its limits. Just look at what the guy is going through.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #15 November 22, 2006 Speaking of Richards, you know what surprises me? Instead of saying, "Gee, I snapped, I don't know what got into me," why didn't he just do what other standup comics do, which is to claim that he was just following the Lenny Bruce tradition of saying shocking, taboo things during his standup routine as a way of reaching his audience, and it simply flopped? Would have at least had some plausibility to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #16 November 22, 2006 Exactly. Let society provide the repercussions - not the law. And the thought of those guys getting paid for him saying that to them makes me angry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteOther than the proverbial "Fire" in a crowded theatre, No! Agreed. That guarantee, embodied in the First Amendment, is one of the GOOD things that separates the US from all the other Western-style democracies, and I'm rather proud of that. Too bad we don't HAVE that guarantee anymore.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #18 November 22, 2006 QuoteFreedom of speech already has its limits. Just look at what the guy is going through. Agreed. What bother me is that what Richards did is in the realm of comedy. The guy screwed up, give him a break. No need to crucify the poor bastard. I wonder how the general public would've react if he busted out the Aristocrats joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #19 November 22, 2006 That lawyer on the Today Show video was the best part of this whole thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 November 22, 2006 QuoteLet society provide the repercussions - not the law. Let the individuals themselves use courtesy to impose limits on themselves. IF that doesn't work, then let society do it. I don't like the whole jumping straight to society - it doesn't take a village to learn courtesy. On the other side of the coin, nor should it take a village for others to not have thin skins either. IF that doesn't work, then we can have this conversation. I voted yes - but I consider self restraint (in terms of speaking and listening reaction) to be a form of limit. And people don't seem to understand this even a TINY bit - we have a bunch of incourteous loudmouths skreeching at a bunch of thin skinned jerks. So I voted yes. I would NOT vote to 'legislate' limits, that would be validating Politically Correct thuggery. So which do you mean then? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #21 November 22, 2006 I meant legally-imposed ones - but I also include monetary compensation deemed necessary in a court of law in that definition - not merely legislation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 November 22, 2006 Then I'd say 'no'. Especially with any single party in control of both houses in congress? What wierd ass crap will be legislated that we can't say in public? If the parties were in conflict? Reps in the senate and Dems in the house, then at least the results could be better with the nutters cancelling each other out, but still, I don't like the idea trying to legislate courtesy in speech. Plus it would just be a mad rush to propose and then furiously debate and pose, and then NOT vote on tons of proposals as congressmen put out impotent bills designed to kiss up to whatever typical biases are present in their voting districts. Monetary compensation? For hurting someone's feelings? other than slander and liable, that's pretty sad too. BUT THINK OF THE TAX REVENUE, under the Dems, if someone uses the word "Father, Dad, or Pop" in a speech, they get fined $100 per. under the Reps, if someone uses the word "peace, entitlement, or withdraw (various meanings)" they get fined $100 per. Think of how that would shore up the Senate medical and dental plans........ ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #23 November 22, 2006 We already have legally-imposed limits. It's called slander. Now if he was up there on stage telling the audience that these guys were terrible doctors that couldn't stitch up a cut because they were cross-eyed there would be a case there. In this case he's just being an insulting jerk. If one of the guys hauled off and decked him right off stage I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see them charged with assault because he asked for it, but that's another issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eflynn 0 #24 November 22, 2006 Because it's obvious he meant what he said. A boldface lie like that would have simply added more shit to the storm. Making an off color remark about another race is something 99% of people have done. What he did was completely different. He got upset at a heckler, which incidentally comes along with doing standup, and said the things he usually just thinks. He's not an 8 year old child who didn't get the transformer he wanted for christmas. He's a grown man who knew what he was doing, what he was saying, who he was saying it to, and where he said it. Here's what they think of you... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #25 November 22, 2006 QuoteSpeaking of Richards, you know what surprises me? Instead of saying, "Gee, I snapped, I don't know what got into me," why didn't he just do what other standup comics do, which is to claim that he was just following the Lenny Bruce tradition of saying shocking, taboo things during his standup routine as a way of reaching his audience, and it simply flopped? Would have at least had some plausibility to it. Or gotten into his Kramer persona and simply said "What, and you thought I was serious?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
