Violation of free speech? Political Correctness gone amok?

Both?


I came across some sheriff reports, because as a reporter, I also compile the weekly court/police reports, and one "case" that struck out the most this week was about a 14-year-old who pressed criminal charges against his neighbor (a grown adult) because she called him a "*****" and a "f**king b*stard."

She did this in front of several small children, and after this boy said to stop, the woman started calling the kids, "wh*res" and what not.

Granted, the grown adult should know better; and today, I talked with the head investigator; I asked him if someone could really press CRIMINAL charges against someone who "offends" them.

He said not only that, but the person doing it could go straight to JAIL.

Jail, people.

For calling someone "gay" you can go to jail.

What in the heck? I thought Freedom of Speech protected speech; I guess I was completely wrong.

Of course, had this woman been drunk, and highly obnoxious, I can see throwing her in the can for that; but where do we draw the line here?


The charges were disorderly conduct charges, which could make her pay $10,000 (if she goes to court) for attorney fees, bail, etc.


I'm curious to see where you people stand.

Marine, I refuse to acknowledge Supreme Court "rulings."

They cannot, by law and by the laws and guidelines WE THE PEOPLE gave them, enact laws.

People always want to refer to Supreme Court decisions ...when it is the legislative branch that creates our laws.

I don't care if the Supreme Court says 1984 is hate literature and bans it, that doesn't make it a law, and it doesn't make it right.

I am in full support of freedom of speech, but people need to watch it sometimes, especially around little children. This woman needs to be put in her place but I'm not sure police action was neccesary.

quote:

---

If you have a problem with the Supreme Court deciding something like this then you have a problem with the constitution.

---

the supreme court has been known to be wrong

Using profanity and calling people names is verbal harassment and disturbing the peace.

Freedom of speach gives us the freedom to express our veiws and such, but we have to be responsible with our freedoms. If people abuse this freedom by harassing others, they have to face the consequences.

If your neighbor started screaming profanity at you wouldn't you want to do something about it?

I completly agree that there are limits to free speech. Freedom of speech should not include the freedom to harass and harm others verbally.

The Honorable Vice President, Honorable Chief Financial Officer, and Honorable Founding Father of the Honorable Coalition Announces the Following...

Joey, ever heard of the Supreme Court? I am assuming you have not since you chose to ignore them in every arguement you make. The Supreme Couurt has ruled that not all speech is protected under the bill of right. If you have a problem with the Supreme Court deciding something like this then you have a problem with the constitution.

*This post has proudly been deemed racism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, and luvabug22 in their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE*

For once I agree with Joey! The end is nigh!

That is OUTRAGEOUS! Especially as it's not a bloody insult.

I personally wouldn't care what anyone calls me. I'm very creative with my comebacks. lol I would of left her crying by time I got done with her. Then again,... if I sued her maybe I could quit working for a while... Hm. lol

quote:

---

"Our forefathers never meant "freedom of speech" to cover something as base as profanity. Their intention was to assure the future of a government "run by the people." A government "run by the people" requires the ability to discuss and vocalize opinions about the government.

---

For once, I completely agree. The nice thing is, this is a good way to outlaw media violence and other societal ills, which have nothing at all to do with free speech. We have and will always need the ability to communicate with and criticize our elected officials.

Thank you, fetch, at least someone sees my reasoning.

quote:

---

The Disney quote was intended to show you WHY there were perverted scenes in children's movies. You're naive - get over it.

---

Er...what, Joey? Have you been to the studio and seen who draws what? I know a lot of straight pervets, a lot of straght people who arent', just like gay people. There are the type you hear about, and see in shows like ***** as Folk. But there are straight guys (and girls) who sees phallic symbols everywhere they go, and go to club every day looking for people to have sex with. Not all homosexuals are pervert. You're naive. Get over it.

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---

"Our forefathers never meant "freedom of speech" to cover something as base as profanity. Their intention was to assure the future of a government "run by the people." A government "run by the people" requires the ability to discuss and vocalize opinions about the government. A government "run by the people" requires a press willing to uncover and report truths so that corruption in the government would be discovered and would not be allowed to continue [a good idea when it works]. A government "by the people" allows people to peaceably assemble and come before the government with grievances with expectations of receiving a fair hearing and outcome.
These rights are important. They are critical in maintaining a free country. But nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution does it mention that we, as a people, have the right to be offensive and vulgar to others. If that were the case where would the offended's rights come into play? Whose rights supercede the other's? And what about little children, don't they have any rights not to have filth said in their presence?" don't remeber where this quote came from.

quote:

---

The problem is we are a country of mixed messages. On one hand, we set up laws to fight profanity [as stated previously.] On the other hand, we seem to exploit profanity to attract our [somewhat rebellious] youth. How is profanity exploited? The worst offenders are the motion picture and the music industries.

---

I have one problem with this statement that I found online. Most of the profanity found in music today isn't directed at one person in particular - the exceptions being people like Eminem. What he does could legally be considered slanderous defamation of character, but that's another story. Usually profanity is used purely as a way for musicians to express their emotions in modern terms. Most musicians don't use these terms in ways that offend people. If the song is angry, they'd most likely say something like, "this f****** s*** has gotta go" or " I don't give a f***," neither of which should offend anyone. I think it all depends on how the words are used. Words such as B****, S***, and f*** can take on different meanings depending on how they're used. Comradesmurf could probably tell you all about that.

This is going to sound stupid probably...but doesn't homophobic mean "afraid of homosexuality?" I mean, I know people who oppose it but that doesn't mean they're afraid of it...I don't get it. I mean I have a fear...well let's not go there, but I'm afraid of something, and I don't like it, obviously, but I mean, just because you don't agree with something, that doesn't mean your afraid of it. I don't like war. Or racism. I'm not afraid of either one though. So how can you call someone who doesn't support homosexual lifestyles "homophobic"?

quote:

---

You're naive and could not imagine that a gay would do such a thing.

---

I can perfectly well imagine that. I can also perfectly well imagine a straight guy doing that...

Aimee, the sheriff's official who I interviewed said anything that is offensive to someone can be treated as a disorderly conduct charge - in other words, (and these are his words), "We can arrest someone for some person calling a [gay guy] a *****."


I've answered this about three times on this one thread already.

And about the little kids who don't have responsible parents to control them, just leave. After asking them to stop, the guy obviously had no manners and then proceeded to cuss the mom out.

You could always sue someone in civil court for that - but to get the authorities involved is COMPLETELY different.

Aimee, you're still not getting the argument.

Why should all people who oppose the homosexual lifestyle be branded as "hate-filled, homophobes?"

Or when some gay starts griping about the physical abuse being used, why then, are the ones who share anti-homosexual views always put in WITH the ones physically abusing someone?


The Disney quote was intended to show you WHY there were perverted scenes in children's movies. You're naive - get over it.

You're naive and could not imagine that a gay would do such a thing.

That was the intent.

Joey, you are contradicting yourself!!!

quote:

---

I do not know why people who have anti-homosexual views
always get lumped in with the FEW that have actually taken
up violence against them; and I do not know why people
who are against the homosexual lifestyle are always referred
to as "homophobic."

---

So you do not wish for anti-homosexuals to be “lumped” together with the “few” who have been violent. But here’s another quote of yours from the “Disney consists of a bunch of perverts!!!!!!” board.

quote:

---

“Disney also employs many homosexuals; seriously, there
are a ton of homosexuals in the graphic artist department
there -- the ones that actually design and create the cartoons.
You are the company you keep I guess.”

---

All homosexuals are not perverts. You are lumping them together. This is not the only time you’ve done this, and there are plenty more people who do it. WHY?????????????

I don't think someone should be arrested for the word "gay". But I think something had to be done about that woman. There is no excuse to be saying those words in front of little children- it's just wrong. At a family trip to an aquarium (six kids, one adult), the table next to us in the cafe had a table with several kids and a guy about 20, and his girlfriend. The kids had terrible mouths- f**k, s**t, etc. This kid was like 10 years old. My youngest brother and sister were 6. My mom asked the guy to make the kids quit talking like that, and he swore at her, called her a b*tch. Come on! That should not be allowed to go on. She got the manager and he convinced the guy to quiet down, but he sat over there muttering.

quote:

---

She did this in front of several small children, and after this boy said to stop, the woman started calling the kids, "wh*res" and what not.

---

No way that should have gone without notice. No way.

Also, I didn't see in your report that she called him "gay" and was arrested for that. Did the police actually say "gay" could get someone arrested?

Dauben,
Not everything is politics as you would like to think. This is an issue of decency towards fellow humans. Obviously this lady did not have good or even nuteral intentions. She is deliberately trying to harm other people with her words. The fact that they were kids just makes it worse in my eyes.

quote:

---

That is, in the most simplistic way to describe it, pure and unadulterated thought-control.

---

Anyone can think whatever they want, we are talking about people acting on their thoughts. It is very simple to understand the difference.

Liltree and Jookly are two prime examples of the effects of Political Correctness.

It's not so much the actual words that people espouse, it's their ideas - their thoughts.

That is, in the most simplistic way to describe it, pure and unadulterated thought-control.


Thought-Nazis. Complete and utter Thought-Nazis.