Down with Political & Personal cartooning!

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
We're not talking about a right of "self-representation" -- I think -- what the hell is that?

I think we are talking about it. Our established character, credibility and truths about ourselves. At least I am, and I started the thread. Not my fault if the discussion veers away from it.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
-- but about a right to privacy.

I'm not. Don't know how that was surmised from anything I've said.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
And I disagree. Anyone who holds elected office volunteered to do so, and understood ahead of time that living in a goldfish bowl was part of the price paid for power.

*shrug* Don't know who you're addressing. A kind of speaking to an agreeable audience?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Cartooning, along with other forms of satire, draws public attention to what the satirist believes is a flaw or danger in a particular politician, party, etc. It's all part of keeping our elected officials accountable to the public.

Nothing like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
If it was well done, I would probably be amused. If not, I would probably be annoyed.

Glad you're able to change paradigm for a moment. What if on the "annoyed" cartoon you received phone calls, letters and endless interrogation with the presumption that this is true? What if your family now was involved in the same?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Yes, it was, because that's HOW you say Clinton violated work ethics -- by having fun on taxpayer-funded time. We didn't elect him, and didn't pay him, to get blow jobs. Right? Of course we didn't.

Okay, so we agreed he violated work ethics.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But we also didn't elect him, and didn't pay him, to sleep. Or to go to the bathroom. Or to eat. Or to party, except at official functions in the line of duty. Et cetera.

Because the presidency is a 24/7 job, some of the work ethic standards that apply to a 40-hour-week job simply can't apply to that one.

If you're saying the presidency is a 24/7 job (and I don't really know if it is or not), then yes we did elect him and pay him to sleep, bathroom, eat, party, etc. I get paid for my 2 breaks throughout the day, so they're paying me for whatever I'm doing during that time because it's on my company's dime.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But this really isn't that important. We can disagree about exactly why Clinton's having an affair with an intern was wrong. Do we agree that it was properly a matter of public right-to-know? Whereas, if you were to cheat on your spouse, it would be none of my business.

If we are the president's boss (the taxpayer), then yes, we have a right to know if our employee is violating the company ethics during company paytime.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
And as, in the case of the president, WE are the company, we have a right to know.

Essentially, yes. We're more the boss than just associates in this structure.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But in doing so, we still go by underlying principles. We say that killing someone is wrong, for example, but we make exceptions for self-defense, defense of another, and some other situations. A police officer who kills someone while trying to make an arrest is subject to an investigation. He isn't automatically condemned for killing someone -- we do not apply that standard as a blanket statement -- but it's still an important standard of community values, and so an investigation to determine whether the killing was justified is always required. If we did NOT have the underlying value that killing should not happen, we would behave, and judge, differently, case by case.

So are you saying there's a time when political cartooning is beneficial? Please tie this analogy together for me.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Just so, if we adopt a "right not to be offended" value, our judgment, case by case, would differ from what it is now. I am suggesting that the consequences of having that value might be quite dire.

It's nice to quote only a piece, is it not? Please do not omit infringing upon the rights of others and unnecessarily causing them harm when presenting my position statement.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
All right, let me explain it clearer.

"Offense" is highly subjective and individual. Just about any human behavior is going to offend somebody. There are people who have posted on this forum who surely find the annual Gay Pride parade in San Francisco highly offensive. (You may even be one of them, but I'm not sure about that.) There are people who find other people's religion, politics, lifestyle, etc. offensive and don't want to be confronted with them.

I used the example of traditional Christianity as something that might offend some people -- that DOES in fact offend me -- because I gather from other posts of yours that you are, yourself, a traditional Christian, so that example is likely to strike home. The presence of certain kinds of church (though of course not all Christian churches) in my community is offensive to me. If I have a right not to be offended, would that not imply a right to muzzle people like you?

I see you and Benevolent Heretic are paddling in the same boat. This isn't exclusively and merely about not offending people. Please see my previous posts for clearer explaination. Also, by all means template the responses about this particular issue of religious freedoms to yourself as well.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
And I just don't think I have that right. I don't care how offensive I find fundamentalist Christianity, I just plain don't have the right to shut it down. Yet this is a logical consequence of a "right not to be offended." And that's why I don't believe we should recognize any such right.

Thanks for only taking a piece of what I say...might I go back through and do the same for you?

Here's one I'd like to repeat over and over again. Two Steps Forward says, "I don't care". Is this an accurate statement?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Not the relationship between religious expression and cartooning people inappropriately. If I'm not "getting it" then try a different approach please.

("inappropriately" is a judgement call, but...)

In the simplist terms, an act, the Constitutional right exercised and the possible outcome:

Political Cartoon = Freedom of Expression = possibly offending someone
Religious Expression = Freedom of Religion = possibly offending someone

Regardless whether you agree that religious expression can be seen as 'offensive', it can and it is. Maybe not to you, but understand, political cartoons are not offensive to everyone either, and even if they were, I wouldn't support a boycott on them, nor would I support a boycott on religious expression.

Sometimes exercising our rights offends other people. We have to make a choice. Do we support the Constitutional rights of the people or do we support the people who might be offended by their exercise? I will always support the Constitutional RIGHT over the person who is offended by the exercise thereof.



[edit on 20-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
("inappropriately" is a judgement call, but...)

In previous posts you've agreed that the cartoons lie, so we'll say lie then. Untrue. Hopefully that's a little less "gray" for you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the simplist terms, an act, the Constitutional right exercised and the possible outcome:

Political Cartoon = Freedom of Expression = possibly offending someone
Religious Expression = Freedom of Religion = possibly offending someone

Regardless whether you agree that religious expression can be seen as 'offensive', it can and it is. Maybe not to you, but understand, political cartoons are not offensive to everyone either, and even if they were, I wouldn't support a boycott on them, nor would I support a boycott on religious expression.

I have no problems with "offending someone" and is not my issue (nor the issue with political/personal cartooning). It's not what I originally posted and is not what I keep rehashing over and over again. I appreciate the clarification though, now I can see how you see it. Hopefully that means you'll be willing to see it as I see it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sometimes exercising our rights offends other people. We have to make a choice. Do we support the Constitutional rights of the people or do we support the people who might be offended by their exercise? I will always support the Constitutional RIGHT over the person who is offended by the exercise thereof.

Still no address to infringing upon the rights of others and it being unnecessarily harmful?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]

Dup post. Cleaned up.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Still no address to infringing upon the rights of others and it being unnecessarily harmful?

You have shown no evidence that political or personal cartoons infringe upon the rights of others or are 'harmful'. You mentioned the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How, specifically, are these rights infringed upon? How does a political cartoon infringe upon the rights of liberty and the pursiut of happiness given to people by their Creator?

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

Specifically, what 'harm' do these cartoons inflict? How do these chararacter drawings that exaggerate and poke fun at public figures actually 'hurt' them or their family? You have said it's not about them being offended, so what is it about?

Edit: The above quote is from the Declaration of Independence, by the way, and NOT the Constitutution, where our rights are secured. And therefore, these rights are not legally protected by the federal government.


[edit on 20-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have shown no evidence that political or personal cartoons infringe upon the rights of others or are 'harmful'. You mentioned the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How, specifically, are these rights infringed upon? How does a political cartoon infringe upon the rights of liberty and the pursiut of happiness given to people by their Creator?

Whoa hey! Here we go, and a good question. Let's take a look at teh definition of liberty:

Main Entry: lib·er·ty

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits

Key notes on social an political rights and priviledges. Do political cartoons inhibit social and political rights?

Main Entry: hap·pi·ness

Pronunciation: 'ha-pi-n&s
Function: noun
1 obsolete : good fortune : PROSPERITY
2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : JOY b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience
www.m-w.com...

Do you believe having lies spread about you inhibits the pursuit of contentment, a pleasurable or satisfying experience for those depicted, friends and family thereof?

A relevant article:

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost.
www.commondreams.org...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Specifically, what 'harm' do these cartoons inflict? How do these chararacter drawings that exaggerate and poke fun at public figures actually 'hurt' them or their family?

Being that you're from the "sticks and stones" school of thought, I do not think I could convince you the fact that spite and malevolence is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have said it's not about them being offended, so what is it about?

Being offended is just a part, not the whole picture. Is it possible to be offended without having you as a person misrepresented and puppeteered? Absolutely, so there's no grounds or need to pursue on that basis alone. If you're wanting my agreement that being offended alone is not enough, you have it.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Main Entry: lib·er·ty

Do political cartoons inhibit social and political rights?

Not that I can see. No. Tell me how.

Main Entry: hap·pi·ness

We are guaranteed no right to 'happiness'. The right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (which as mentioned above is not protected by the government) is the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to "happiness", Constitutional or otherwise. Political cartoons do not infringe upon one's right to pursue happiness. Even if it were a protected right.

A relevant article:

Are you implying that a Corporation who lies to their customers for monetary gain is the same as a political cartoon? You don't seem to understand the difference between making a false statement with the intent to deceive people and making up a humorous or satirical cartoon, with the intent of getting across a point, knowing that people won't take it as truth.

If you're wanting my agreement that being offended is not enough, you have it.

So, what 'harm' do these cartoons inflict?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not that I can see. No. Tell me how.

It is illegal to appropriate an individual’s name or likeness for commercial or trade purposes without consent.
What does that mean?

The right to retain ownership of your image or name is a personal right.

This is the notion that you have been embarrassed by having your name or image associated with a commercial endeavor – and that your privacy has therefore been invaded

It’s associated with another right: the right to publicity.

The right to publicity is a property right: your image and likeness as property.

That means it is passed on to your heirs.

This is really important because using digitization, advertisers can create "real" moving images of dead celebrities.

You have the right to control publicity about you. That means you have the right

To keep anybody else from using your image to make a profit.

The right to publicity protects a person’s image, name and identity.

Identity? Yes, including an image created through playing a character.

The courts have found "Where an actor’s screen person becomes so associated

With him that it becomes inseparable from the actor’s own public image, the

Actor obtains an interest in the image which gives him standing to prevent mere

Interlopers from using it without authority."
academics.smcvt.edu...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We are guaranteed no right to 'happiness'. The right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (which as mentioned above is not protected by the government) is the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to "happiness", Constitutional or otherwise. Political cartoons do not infringe upon one's right to pursue happiness. Even if it were a protected right.

This is why my question was "inhibits the pursuit of contentment, a pleasurable or satisfying experience for those depicted, friends and family thereof". Please answer the question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are you implying that a Corporation who lies to their customers for monetary gain is the same as a political cartoon?

They both make false claims. They're both made up of people. They both make monetary gain in doing so. Seems there are more parallels than not.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You don't seem to understand the difference between making a false statement with the intent to deceive people and making up a humorous or satirical cartoon, with the intent of getting across a point, knowing that people won't take it as truth.

We go "ha ha ha, hm" at a political/personal cartoon, instead of just "hm" to a product. I don't see that great of a difference other than you can return a product.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what 'harm' do these cartoons inflict?

Please position yourself, friend or family member as a target of the cartoon. Not all harm is physical. We've been through this many times.

Originally posted by saint4GodOur established character, credibility and truths about ourselves.

OK, let me make sure I understand you here, because I'm still by no means certain. Are you suggesting that we each have a right to define ourselves for public consumption, and not be defined by others?

Nothing like guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Innocent until proven guilty is a standard that specifically applies in a court of law and nowhere else. If a politician is indicted and tried in a court of law, then like anyone else he is protected by the standard of reasonable doubt (or preponderance of evidence in a civil case). In the court of public opinion, there is no such protection, and yes, we assume a priori that a politician is morally capable of betraying the public trust. That is the only safe and civicly responsible thing to do.

What if on the "annoyed" cartoon you received phone calls, letters and endless interrogation with the presumption that this is true? What if your family now was involved in the same?

Then, if the material presented was factually inaccurate, and was presented with malice and disregard for the truth, I could take the cartoonist to court. If the material was true, however, I'd have no such recourse.

Okay, so we agreed he violated work ethics.

No, we don't. See below.

If you're saying the presidency is a 24/7 job (and I don't really know if it is or not), then yes we did elect him and pay him to sleep, bathroom, eat, party, etc.

In that case, we also elected him to get blow jobs. Although we still might have something to say about him getting bjs from someone other than his wife, without her permission. Not directly (in itself it's none of our business), but because that says something about whether we can trust him to keep his commitment to the citizenry, if he can't keep his marital commitments.

I get paid for my 2 breaks throughout the day

You get paid by the hour, then. Being on a salary (plus commission), I don't get paid for breaks. In any case, though, your company does not pay you FOR taking breaks; they pay you for something else, whatever your job is, and ALLOW you two paid breaks per day. This is normal (and legally required in most states) for an hourly-wage job.

My pay structure is a bit more like the president's. I get paid the same salary whether I work 7 14-hour days or goof off the whole week (although if I do the latter consistently, I won't get any commission and eventually would lose my job). If I were to get laid in the middle of the day, my boss wouldn't much care -- although, strictly speaking, that is NOT my job.

Essentially, yes. We're more the boss than just associates in this structure.

All right. We're the politicians' boss. But since we're a huge collective boss, we must have discussions among ourselves, very public ones, about whether our employees are doing good jobs or not. I'm saying that political cartooning and other forms of satire are a necessary and valuable part of that discussion.

So are you saying there's a time when political cartooning is beneficial?

Yes, absolutely. It is part of the open political dialogue that allows us to keep collective vigilance over the government, and make it publicly accountable.

Please do not omit infringing upon the rights of others and unnecessarily causing them harm when presenting my position statement.

It is, I believe, your position that people have a right not to be offended. On this basis do you contend that people's rights are being infringed by political cartoons. If people do NOT have that right, then their rights are NOT being infringed. So this goes very much to the heart of the matter.

Also, by all means template the responses about this particular issue of religious freedoms to yourself as well.

Oh, I do, believe me. In fact, that is the biggest reason why I am uneasy about conceding a "right not to be offended." I do not recognize a right not to be confronted, or even not to have one's children confronted (except in one's own home or church, of course), by MY religion and values.

But -- sauce for the goose, etc. I turned the example around, because the same principle really does apply the other way, too.

So, we've moved away from the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness and taken up the rights of privacy and publicity?

From your source:

Points to remember:

1. There’s no privacy in public.
If you’re doing it in a public place, you can’t claim privacy.

Right to Privacy
Public figures have a limited claim to a right of privacy. Past and present government officials, political candidates, entertainers and sports figures are generally considered to be public figures. They are said to have exposed themselves to scrutiny voluntarily and to have waived their right of privacy, at least in matters that might have an impact on their ability to perform their public duties.

Originally posted by saint4God
Please answer the question.

Do I believe that having lies spread about a person inhibits their pursuit of happiness for those depicted and their friends?

No, I do not. They can still pursue happiness all they want. No one is stopping them from pursuing happiness. But again, the pursuit of happiness is not a Constitutional right.

Secondly, political cartoons are not "lies". They are not expected to be believed. That's like saying a novel is a lie. It didn't really happen, but it's generally known to be untrue. It's not portrayed as being true. And it isn't. Neither are political cartoons.

They both make false claims. They're both made up of people. They both make monetary gain in doing so. Seems there are more parallels than not.

Well, like I've said before, good luck in court with that logic.

I don't see that great of a difference other than you can return a product.

A false claim by a corporation is generally expected to be true. Kind of like a biography.

A political cartoon is generally expected to be untrue. Like a novel.

Please position yourself, friend or family member as a target of the cartoon. Not all harm is physical. We've been through this many times.

We may have been through this, but you haven't yet told me how people are harmed, except of course that they might be offended. I have said I don't believed they are harmed. You say they are. Tell me how. Their feelings are hurt? Welcome to life.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Secondly, political cartoons are not "lies". They are not expected to be believed. That's like saying a novel is a lie. It didn't really happen, but it's generally known to be untrue. It's not portrayed as being true. And it isn't. Neither are political cartoons.

I'm going to expand on this a bit, because I don't think BH has quite nailed this idea.

A political cartoon has a surface depicted fact which is absurd and which nobody is expected to believe, but it also has an underlying statement of fact and/or opinion that people are supposed to take seriously.

For example, in the cartoon that shows Bush riding a missile, the surface depicted fact is that Bush joyrides on ICBMs. Well, that's absurd, of course he does nothing of the kind, and nobody is expected to believe that he does.

But the underlying statement of opinion (not fact in this case) is that Bush is a warmonger. People are expected to take that seriously.

The cartoonist is saying, "George W. Bush is a warmonger," and the cartoon is his/her way of expressing that sentiment.

The statement "Bush joyrides on ICBMs" is a statement of fact, which is false.

The statement "Bush is a warmonger" is a statement of opinion, which is neither true nor false.

A cartoon might conceivably cross into the territory of libel if its underlying statement (not its surface statement) is one of fact, is malicious, and is incorrect.

Thank you, Two. I couldn't figure out how to say that, because I know that there is some amount of 'claim of truth' (it's actually opinion) underlying the superficial picture. But I couldn't straighten out the words in my mind...

I'll be back with a more thorough response when time permits. As far as the right to privacy, what I quoted was a personal right and right to publicity.

"The right to retain ownership of your image or name is a personal right.

It’s associated with another right: the right to publicity."

I intentionally did not include the right to privacy in my reply. See ya's soon, hope y'all are having a good day.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
In previous posts you've agreed that the cartoons lie

I'm not at all sure I've agreed to that. The superficial (and not meant to be taken literally) picture isn't true, but I wouldn't call it a lie. It's a cartoon... Calling it a lie is much the same as calling Scoobie-Doo a lie because dogs don't really talk...

Originally posted by saint4God
I intentionally did not include the right to privacy in my reply.

Look at the heading of your source. Privacy Law. In other words, personal rights ARE privacy rights.

And don't miss the quote from your source:

Points to remember:

1. There’s no privacy in public.
If you’re doing it in a public place, you can’t claim privacy.

What Constitutional right(s) do politial cartoons infringe upon?



[edit on 20-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Just another point of clarification:

I don't believe Saint4God is talking about constitutional rights, but rather about moral rights, rights that we recognize or should whether or not they are protected in current law. He is not even talking about rights that SHOULD be recognized in law, if I understand him correctly, but rather about rights that we, as individuals, should recognize in our own behavior. Didn't he specifically state early on that he did not believe cartoonists should be subject to legal censorship? That implies he's not talking about what is, or even should be, rights under the law, but must mean rights in another sense.

As an example, my friends have a right to generous behavior on my part, not because the law or the Constitution says they do, but because I say they do.

Saint4God is, if I understand him correctly (always a chancy assumption), saying that satirical cartoonists should not do what they do, that it causes harm to people, and that we as consumers should boycott their products. He further says that people have a right not to have their feelings, or those of their families, hurt by satire. This is what we need to be discussing. I think it is a highly debatable assertion, but the set of rights defined and protected under the Constitution doesn't really have a bearing here.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I don't believe Saint4God is talking about constitutional rights, but rather about moral rights, rights that we recognize or should whether or not they are protected in current law.

Personally I feel the discussion has gone all over the place. But...

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I also don't see how political cartoons infringe on the Constitutional rights of others.

I agree you don't see it, but that's why we're discussing.

He is not even talking about rights that SHOULD be recognized in law, if I understand him correctly, but rather about rights that we, as individuals, should recognize in our own behavior.

Perhaps. I honestly thought he (is he a he? - I didn't know) was talking about Constitutional rights as he mentioned the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Saint4God is, if I understand him correctly (always a chancy assumption), saying that satirical cartoonists should not do what they do, that it causes harm to people, and that we as consumers should boycott their products.

I do think that's part of his argument. But I have said that I disagree and won't be joining him in his boycott.

He further says that people have a right not to have their feelings, or those of their families, hurt by satire.

Well, he can certainly assert that, but again, I disagree.

For not wanting to discuss Constitutional rights, he certainly talks a lot about it.

Originally posted by saint4God
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...at the broadest level foremost. These cartoons inhibit our abilities to witness and testify for ourselves what is true, subjected to the opinions of others and imposed as factual or characteristically parts of our being that are incorrect. It is a personal assault upon our intelligence, our emotions and our loved ones' ability to live with the constitutional rights we all should be entitled to.

But I'll roll up my Constitution and go home if that's not what we're talking about.

Good morning Two Steps Forward, Benevolent Heretic. Glad to see you both today. Wow, I hadn't had this much homework since college! I shall do my best, though think your pacings are faster than mine. Anywho, the sun is shining (or it's raining/snowing depending where you're at) so each day is a blessing. Here we go:

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
OK, let me make sure I understand you here, because I'm still by no means certain. Are you suggesting that we each have a right to define ourselves for public consumption, and not be defined by others?

No.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Innocent until proven guilty is a standard that specifically applies in a court of law and nowhere else. If a politician is indicted and tried in a court of law, then like anyone else he is protected by the standard of reasonable doubt (or preponderance of evidence in a civil case). In the court of public opinion, there is no such protection, and yes, we assume a priori that a politician is morally capable of betraying the public trust. That is the only safe and civicly responsible thing to do.

I wish I could take a course on double-standardology. I'm not saying "don't be watchful" just not assume guilt & corruption.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Then, if the material presented was factually inaccurate, and was presented with malice and disregard for the truth, I could take the cartoonist to court. If the material was true, however, I'd have no such recourse.

Being that most politicians do not have the time to go to court (they do have a job to do), then the assumption is that these cartoons are true? Oh my. The problem appears worse than I thought.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, we don't. See below.

If you're saying the presidency is a 24/7 job (and I don't really know if it is or not), then yes we did elect him and pay him to sleep, bathroom, eat, party, etc.

In that case, we also elected him to get blow jobs. Although we still might have something to say about him getting bjs from someone other than his wife, without her permission. Not directly (in itself it's none of our business), but because that says something about whether we can trust him to keep his commitment to the citizenry, if he can't keep his marital commitments.

The intern was also employed by us. Erego, fooling around with her supervisor on company time. Are you saying this isn't a problem either?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
You get paid by the hour, then. Being on a salary (plus commission), I don't get paid for breaks. In any case, though, your company does not pay you FOR taking breaks; they pay you for something else, whatever your job is, and ALLOW you two paid breaks per day. This is normal (and legally required in most states) for an hourly-wage job.

I'd argue what the salary pays for but it's off-topic. Still I'm the company's responsibility on their clock and property. If I do something inappropriate on my break, they could fire me, yes?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
My pay structure is a bit more like the president's. I get paid the same salary whether I work 7 14-hour days or goof off the whole week (although if I do the latter consistently, I won't get any commission and eventually would lose my job). If I were to get laid in the middle of the day, my boss wouldn't much care -- although, strictly speaking, that is NOT my job.

Do you get paid weekly, bi-weekly or yearly?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
All right. We're the politicians' boss. But since we're a huge collective boss, we must have discussions among ourselves, very public ones, about whether our employees are doing good jobs or not. I'm saying that political cartooning and other forms of satire are a necessary and valuable part of that discussion.

Why?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Yes, absolutely. It is part of the open political dialogue that allows us to keep collective vigilance over the government, and make it publicly accountable.

Paranoia. You can be watchful without being afraid of corruption.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
It is, I believe, your position that people have a right not to be offended. On this basis do you contend that people's rights are being infringed by political cartoons. If people do NOT have that right, then their rights are NOT being infringed. So this goes very much to the heart of the matter.

On Benevolent Heretics bandwagon? Ten points for teamwork, zero points for originality. Already addressed.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Oh, I do, believe me. In fact, that is the biggest reason why I am uneasy about conceding a "right not to be offended." I do not recognize a right not to be confronted, or even not to have one's children confronted (except in one's own home or church, of course), by MY religion and values.

But -- sauce for the goose, etc. I turned the example around, because the same principle really does apply the other way, too.

Sure, if they were parallel examples. But, they're not.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But again, the pursuit of happiness is not a Constitutional right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

We hold these truths to be...what exactly? Endowed by their Creator with certain...what? This document precedes the U.S Constitution and was the framework thereof.

I'm stopping here, because if we cannot agree that this is what this country was founded upon, there's no point in going further.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
This document precedes the U.S Constitution and was the framework thereof.
...
I'm stopping here, because if we cannot agree that this is what this country was founded upon, there's no point in going further.

What makes you think I disagree with that? This is the first time it's been mentioned... You can stop if you wish, but it can't be because I disagree with that statement. Because I don't.

I haven't previously said anything about "what the country was founded upon" and neither have you. I just said that the pursuit of happiness isn't a Constitutional right.

It has become extremely unclear to me whether you, Saint4God are advocating boycotting political cartoons because of

- Our Constitutional Rights (using the word "rights" in the legal manner)
- Privacy rights (personal and publicity rights) not available to public figures
- Our rights of dignity (using the word "rights" in the common manner)
- On the grounds of being 'civil'
- On the grounds of it being 'toxic' to society
Or what exactly...

Frankly, I'm not sure you're too clear on it.

If it's Constitutional rights, then I asked which one(s). Not an unreasonable question. If it's the pursuit of happiness, even though it's not enumerated in the Constitution, we still have the right, it's just not specifically a "Constitutional right" protected by the government.

And if that's your case, I don't understand how a political cartoon (basically an Op/Ed in a picture) infringes on the right of one to pursue happiness.

If it's not Constitutional rights, then there is no debate (with me) because I'm a Constitutionalist and I will always choose it and the rights outlined therein (freedom of speech) over hurt feelings, taking offense or whatever argument you might present.

I've quite been enjoying this discussion over this past week. Thank you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I haven't previously said anything about "what the country was founded upon" and neither have you. I just said that the pursuit of happiness isn't a Constitutional right.

Because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution in the same way it is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence? I'm unsure why our founding fathers should have to repeat themselves every time there's an amendment. Okay, game on. If we can agree that the Constitution does not negate, nullify, take away from and only adds to the Declaration of Independence then I'm good to go to move on. It looks like I've glad a lot of homework to catch up on here though, so please be patient with me. Be back with you soon. Also, I have stated before I'm not well studied on law (else I would not have the need to discuss this) and am working with the theories the country was structured upon without reference to Article 15, subparagraph A, section 2B of the Federal Justice Code yadda yadda (for example). If a lawyer puts me "in my place" I'm fine with that and have no problem being told I am wrong and why.