It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
We're not talking about a right of "self-representation" -- I think -- what the hell is that?
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
-- but about a right to privacy.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
If it was well done, I would probably be amused. If not, I would probably be annoyed.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
And as, in the case of the president, WE are the company, we have a right to know.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
("inappropriately" is a judgement call, but...)
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.
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.
Originally posted by saint4God
Still no address to infringing upon the rights of others and it being unnecessarily harmful?
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;
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?
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?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have said it's not about them being offended, so what is it about?
Originally posted by saint4God
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Do political cartoons inhibit social and political rights?
Main Entry: hap·pi·ness
A relevant article:
If you're wanting my agreement that being offended is not enough, you have it.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what 'harm' do these cartoons inflict?
Originally posted by saint4GodOur established character, credibility and truths about ourselves.
Nothing like guilty until proven innocent, eh?
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?
Okay, so we agreed he violated work ethics.
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
Essentially, yes. We're more the boss than just associates in this structure.
So are you saying there's a time when political cartooning is beneficial?
Please do not omit infringing upon the rights of others and unnecessarily causing them harm when presenting my position statement.
Also, by all means template the responses about this particular issue of religious freedoms to yourself as well.
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.
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.
I don't see that great of a difference other than you can return a product.
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 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.
Originally posted by saint4God
In previous posts you've agreed that the cartoons lie
Originally posted by saint4God
I intentionally did not include the right to privacy in my reply.
Points to remember:
1. There’s no privacy in public.
If you’re doing it in a public place, you can’t claim privacy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But again, the pursuit of happiness is not a Constitutional right.
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.
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.