Anti-Obama Billboards The Talk Of Hanson

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I think one of the great downfalls of our modern society currently is the overly PC mindset that people get. Yes, we have free speech. But we've created a vacuum where people don't wish to be responsible for what they say. If a person were to post billboards like this about me, for example, I'd sue. But the POTUS has considerations greater than mine... Suing might well turn this little BS sideshow into a full blown media 3 ring circus.

To me this is no different from Fred Phelps and the Westboro people. They rely upon the media to protect them while they abuse a right.

In a better world public and peer pressure would prevent people from doing these types of things. Unfortunately we've gotten so misguided in our quest to be fair that we've eliminated most forms of outrage and backlash from the mix. We've become so afraid of offending that people get away with outrageous things all because others are afraid to say "Yeah, you're an idiot. Cut that crap out dude!" for fear of being called a fascist or unpatriotic.

Freedom of speech was never meant to be a one way street. It was meant to allow open dialogue in both directions.

So, as a true patriot, I'll stand up and say it. The guy putting these billboards up is a dolt and needs a good slapping.

~Heff

reply to post by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Thanks for the reply, but I am really more interested in having some of the liberals come tell us why this is not to be protected as free speech.

Oh, well, you should have stated that you were politically trolling in the title. Maybe you'd get more attention.

Most people call me a liberal. I voted for Obama and will again. But I stand firmly on the conservative side of things on some issues. I support free speech. So, do I qualify?

The first sentence in your troll post is "Free Speech or offensive?" WTF? Why can't it be both? IMO, it is both. In fact, MUCH of what we talk about when we're discussing Free Speech IS offensive to someone. No one is fighting non-offensive speech.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Foul Speech IS one of those limits (obscenity). It's too bad you started a thread about it, but don't know enough about it to make your points. :shk:

You can't incite crime, use "fighting words", slander people... There are a lot of limits.

Obscenity is a legal term that applies to anything offensive to morals and is often equated with the term pornography. Pornography, however, is a more limited term, which refers to the erotic content of books, magazines, films, and recordings. Obscenity includes pornography, but may also include nude dancing, sexually oriented commercial telephone messages, and scatological comedy routines. U.S. courts have had a difficult time determining what is obscene. This problem has serious implications, because if an act or an item is deemed obscene, it is not protected by the First Amendment.

Source

Having said all of that, I agree with sheepslayer and outkast. It's free speech. It's offensive AND it's legal. But if the people of the town want it to come down, I would support them in making that happen.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
So, it is political trolling to get the opposition to explain and debate their beliefs? Lefties want these billboards taken down. I want some of them to come tell us why it is ok to violate this man's free speech; while the anti-Bush billboards were just fine. Trolling must be your definition of exposing hypocrisy.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I couldn't see anything offensive about the signs until I got to the video - I can see where displaying certain universally acknowledged hand signs might be deemed offensive to community standards. Covering the offensive part of the sign seems like a reasonable alternative. SO, given that ONE exception...

The political content of the three signs in the video seems well within the bounds of acceptable political commentary. Unless the placement, size or construction violates some local ordinance or election signage statute, no basis exists for removal by a municipality. I would not support a municipal action to have the signs removed. A community-based approach to force the sign's removal would rely on civil courts and thus be expensive and time consuming - a political or government-based attempt to remove the signs without cause and process will effectively trample free speech rights (that would also apply to reactionary ordinances in my thinking as well). I entirely support the efforts of citizens banded together for the common good to press their grievances in the courts, or as they may see fit by boycotting businesses or putting up their own signs.

ganjoa

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Sorry, but your little trolling attempt won't work this time.

Indeed, it's protected speech.

But, when people start posting up pictures of Obama being harmed or implying harm, then it moves into hate speech territory.

Ditto on any other political figure, etc.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
So, it is political trolling to get the opposition to explain and debate their beliefs?

No, it's political trolling to suggest that liberals don't believe in free speech! You put the bait out there, then when people started answering, you admitted that you were trolling for liberals. That's how I read your post, anyway.

Each person is going to see different things as "offensive".

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Sorry, but your little trolling attempt won't work this time.

Indeed, it's protected speech.

But, when people start posting up pictures of Obama being harmed or implying harm, then it moves into hate speech territory.

Ditto on any other political figure, etc.

Actually, it's only considered hate speech if the actual "speech" incited violence.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't think that's accurate...

Legal Definition of Hate Speech

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

I think you're talking about a "Hate Crime", which, of course, requires a crime to be committed.

reply to post by beezzer


Except that this isn't an AMERICAN billboard.

Doesn't count.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So, it is political trolling to get the opposition to explain and debate their beliefs? Lefties want these billboards taken down. I want some of them to come tell us why it is ok to violate this man's free speech; while the anti-Bush billboards were just fine. Trolling must be your definition of exposing hypocrisy.

If you aren't trolling...then why aren't you responding to the honest answers to your question???

Wasn't what you were looking for??? Did you want someone to come in here and make an illogical argument that you could then attack???

Sorry...bad luck for you.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


If i had to choose, which i apparently do, i would call it offensive.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

If i had to choose, which i apparently do, i would call it offensive.

It is ok if it offends you. Do you think it is protected as free speech?

reply to post by DarthMuerte

So, it is political trolling to get the opposition to explain and debate their beliefs?

What "beliefs" are we talking about in this thread?

Lefties want these billboards taken down.

Is it the belief that even liberals can say they don't like the billboard and want to see it gone?

I want some of them to come tell us why it is ok to violate this man's free speech;

But it is okay to tell liberals that they cant protest using their free speech?

while the anti-Bush billboards were just fine.

I don't particularly enjoy them.

Trolling must be your definition of exposing hypocrisy.

I am sorry, the whole point of your thread was "This man is just exercising his free speech and liberals should just shut up".

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

If i had to choose, which i apparently do, i would call it offensive.

It is ok if it offends you. Do you think it is protected as free speech?

I don't know, depends on certain details. I am sure arguments could be made for and against that.

I think it's stupid and wrong to attack someone personally vs their policies but it's free speech and much worse was done to bush, IMO