Kathy Griffin teams up with Lisa Bloom to sue Donald Trump

originally posted by: Justoneman


Her right to free speech has not been infringed. Her right to be paid by paying customers or be free from criticism is different than free speech as I think you might not realize at this moment?

If there are customers that want to pay her, then it is their rights that are being infringed as well as hers.

The only thing I point at is the hypocrisy of those free speech and free market supporters.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee

Maybe I'll watch her sometimes. And I love Carlin. May he rest in peace.

Agreed Carlin is one of the all time favorites of mine.

I love the one he did about the words that were close to the 7 and when you could use them like "cock" was okay when talking about a male chicken it is priceless.

Enjoy
www.youtube.com...


A decent article on George
www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: Annee

As previously said - - she's had many controversies in her career.

I would say none of them compare to this one. And to claim that this has any affiliation to satirical humor is flat out denial of the truth. This was her political statement. She didn't do it for the laughs. She hates Trump. I am a comedian and this was meant to be funny fall back does not cut it. She did it to show her true feelings for Trump.

As have many satirists that push the limits.

This was not satire. There was no comedy in it. It was done to hurt someone in specific. The sitting President. Now she doesn't seem to want the backlash that comes after those controversies you were speaking of.

At least I know about the person we're talking about - - as I've followed her for years

Really? How well do you know her? Do you hang out? Talk about each others secrets? You know the things that need to happen before you really "know" someone? Following someone and knowing someone are two entirely different things.

a reply to: Bluesma

If there are customers that want to pay her, then it is their rights that are being infringed as well as hers.

What? Who is stopping them from paying her. Send her a check. I am sure she will cash it.

The only thing I point at is the hypocrisy of those free speech and free market supporters.

So don't play the same game as the left? What kind of game would that be? You have to play fair.

a reply to: Annee

I don't care.

That is why Trump won the Presidency.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Justoneman


Her right to free speech has not been infringed. Her right to be paid by paying customers or be free from criticism is different than free speech as I think you might not realize at this moment?

If there are customers that want to pay her, then it is their rights that are being infringed as well as hers.

The only thing I point at is the hypocrisy of those free speech and free market supporters.

I am betting you don't believe the people that want to hear her can't pay her to speak? And if you do, you can test the theory.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Annee

I don't care.

That is why Trump won the Presidency.

Lame

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: Annee

I don't care.

That is why Trump won the Presidency.

Lame

Yep , i agree NOT CARING Is lame. DO you not care bout KG wanting to get to an 11 year old kid? I noticed no comment on that lame crap yet from you. I am left to assume you just hate kids too besides the truth?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Justoneman


Her right to free speech has not been infringed. Her right to be paid by paying customers or be free from criticism is different than free speech as I think you might not realize at this moment?

If there are customers that want to pay her, then it is their rights that are being infringed as well as hers.

The only thing I point at is the hypocrisy of those free speech and free market supporters.

I am betting you don't believe the people that want to hear her can't pay her to speak? And if you do, you can test the theory.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the comment.
I am not following this story in detail, I am not up on what has or has not been put into action. I only noticed a lot of uproar about her photo, and saw some clamoring for legal action against her. It was the basic attitude turn around that struck me, that's all.

Personally, I felt Charlie Hebdo should have had legal action against their choice of expression before it got out. I am not against some legal action against this comedian. But that's me, I have never claimed to be a staunch supporter of complete freedom of speech.

a reply to: Annee

Lame

Lame or not, it is the truth.

a reply to: Bluesma

I have never claimed to be a staunch supporter of complete freedom of speech.

I am a supporter for complete freedom of speech. I am also a supporter of don't let your mouth write checks that your a$$ can't cash movement. People should be free to express themselves, but with that freedom comes the cost of backlash.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Justoneman


Her right to free speech has not been infringed. Her right to be paid by paying customers or be free from criticism is different than free speech as I think you might not realize at this moment?

If there are customers that want to pay her, then it is their rights that are being infringed as well as hers.

The only thing I point at is the hypocrisy of those free speech and free market supporters.

I am betting you don't believe the people that want to hear her can't pay her to speak? And if you do, you can test the theory.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the comment.
I am not following this story in detail, I am not up on what has or has not been put into action. I only noticed a lot of uproar about her photo, and saw some clamoring for legal action against her. It was the basic attitude turn around that struck me, that's all.

Personally, I felt Charlie Hebdo should have had legal action against their choice of expression before it got out. I am not against some legal action against this comedian. But that's me, I have never claimed to be a staunch supporter of complete freedom of speech.

Fair enough let me try again. SHe is not Charlie Hebdo in any way. Charlie drew a picture of Mohammed that was truthfull. That so called comedian, KG ,made a fool out of her self by pretending to have a severed bloody head of the POTUS and was previously quoted wanting to do something that would get to the little kid. BIG difference when you have a pack of people who chose to be rapist/murderers for a religion of 'peace" being scorned with a simple cartoon and a situation that was a veiled threat to any POTUS current or past. Now that is so vile .

a reply to: Bluesma

You mean that Charlie Hebdo should be held accountable for the risk to people?

So this is a prime example of going full retard

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bluesma

You mean that Charlie Hebdo should be held accountable for the risk to people?

No. I wrote -

I felt Charlie Hebdo should have had legal action against their choice of expression before it got out

That means I support some sort of control before such events.
I think human beings living in a collective should be aware they live in proximity of others and be respectful of that.
Black and white thinking would say there is a blame to be put on one and not the other. I don't see the world that way.
Events are created by a combination of peoples and acts.


Look at this way, on a smaller scale- In a context such as a workplace, or a school, it is easy for a person(s) to provoke and harrass someone to lose it and eventually strike out or start yelling violently. Then they can be considered as innappropriate or mentally instable.
I watched an event like this recently at my work- a woman was being harrassed non-stop by a co-worker, who would snap at her for no reason and mumble insults next to her so no one else could hear, for eight hours of each day. The woman finally snapped loudly at her one day (after months of this) to defend herself- and she was ostracized by the whole office and seen as violent or problematic. Until she couldn't take it and quit.

No one can say the woman who yelled in the middle of the office was right to do so- that is not appropriate behavior, and she should be held accountable for her actions.

But saying that does NOT mean the other harrassing woman is NOT accountable for her own actions. Her acts were still part of the creation of that particular event too.
I too, as well as all the others that watched this going on and did nothing, just crossing our fingers that the victim will be able to keep her sanity faced with this, are partly responsible too.

The question of individual freedom to harrass others is obviously a topic of reflection for me at this time. Whether it be on a grand public scale or a smaller private one, the principles to consider remain the same for me.

Just happened to come across this ATS thread tonight..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

University of Alaska displayed a decapitated Trump painting, but it didn't make news. Maybe a painting is less "forceful"?

a reply to: carewemust

It appears to me that the more real it appears to be the more fake outrage is expressed.

originally posted by: Justoneman


Charlie drew a picture of Mohammed that was truthfull. That so called comedian, KG ,made a fool out of her self by pretending to have a severed bloody head of the POTUS and was previously quoted wanting to do something that would get to the little kid. BIG difference when you have a pack of people who chose to be rapist/murderers for a religion of 'peace" being scorned with a simple cartoon and a situation that was a veiled threat to any POTUS current or past. Now that is so vile .

I am not sure what you meant by "truthful" - it was cartoon. It was meant to be humorous and mock someone others see as an important leader.

Though there are extremists who do terrible things and also see that person as a leader, there are also many who do not do any of those things.

I had a friend who was muslim at the time, who felt terribly torn- she hated what the terrorists did, but also felt deeply insulted by the cartoon. I know she was against all extremist muslim groups and active in trying to keep them out of her neighborhood and away from her kids.

There is the valid argument that throughout time, all cultures have someone in the role of clown, jester, or comedian, who use humor to point out our hypocrisies and taboos and inconsistancies. There is a place for that too- we all need a light hearted way of facing ourselves honestly.

Tact at certain very painful points is what I lean towards though. Just my opinion.

a reply to: xstealthanother one of them girls who got a job back in the day because someone thought she was pretty who after sh got old decided it was smart to show the president sans body. yet she thinks she can she can say what she will use this to bring career back from the drain

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: carewemust

It appears to me that the more real it appears to be the more fake outrage is expressed.

I guess we know what will be the #1 Halloween costume this year. A red-wigged witch, carrying a severed Trump head.

Come to think of it, that might be illegal?