First Amendment

AuthorMessage
Brendon Urie..
King For A Couple Of Days
Brendon Urie..
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2394

Mibba
March 1st, 2007 at 03:38pm
spill_no_sick:
WeFoundTheDuck:
druscilla_nesser:
spill_no_sick:
well yeah, war on terror doesn't stop all terrorists but it sure as hell stopped a lot of them
Not the American ones.
Exactly.

And people should really be able to say what they want. Slander is punishable by law, if it can be proved. So I don't really see the harm in allowing people to state opinions freely.
I actually saw that comming
"Americans are terrorists for being in wars and having money"

Terrorism has a singular goal: to create terror.
Americans who go overseas [or even stay in America] and shoot people, threaten people, bomb other countries, etc. create terror.
Erego, they are terrorists.
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
March 1st, 2007 at 05:36pm
spill_no_sick:
I actually saw that comming
"Americans are terrorists for being in wars and having money"
look, we sought out to take out terrorist group
the only American terrorist groups I can think of are the Trench Coat Mafia (dead), KKK and groups of the sort (who are punished if they act upon their beliefs), and homophobes (who are delt with)
people should be able to say what they want, but they should realize that slander is not protected
and let's put this into a scenario that doesn't involve slander against Bush (because you all support that)

how about The Truth counting everyone smoker who dies of a heart or respitory related illness as a "death caused by tobacco"
how fair is that?
people will call it "false advertising" but it's slander
just like everyone says, "I can do this because of the first ammendment!"
it's being perverted and I seem to be the only one (and George Washington) to believe it will have an attrocious outcome
False advertising and slander are not the same. Bush is a bad leader, and that is a fact. Not slander if it's true.

I agree 100% with druscilla_nesser. There is no reason for the American troops to be in Iraq. None. It's their civil war.

And I doubt you and George Washington have spoken about this issue.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 2nd, 2007 at 07:22pm
WeFoundTheDuck:
spill_no_sick:
I actually saw that comming
"Americans are terrorists for being in wars and having money"
look, we sought out to take out terrorist group
the only American terrorist groups I can think of are the Trench Coat Mafia (dead), KKK and groups of the sort (who are punished if they act upon their beliefs), and homophobes (who are delt with)
people should be able to say what they want, but they should realize that slander is not protected
and let's put this into a scenario that doesn't involve slander against Bush (because you all support that)

how about The Truth counting everyone smoker who dies of a heart or respitory related illness as a "death caused by tobacco"
how fair is that?
people will call it "false advertising" but it's slander
just like everyone says, "I can do this because of the first ammendment!"
it's being perverted and I seem to be the only one (and George Washington) to believe it will have an attrocious outcome
False advertising and slander are not the same. Bush is a bad leader, and that is a fact. Not slander if it's true.

I agree 100% with druscilla_nesser. There is no reason for the American troops to be in Iraq. None. It's their civil war.

And I doubt you and George Washington have spoken about this issue.
again, it was just an example
I hate the whole "Iraq war" issue because there are maybe four actual opinions on it, and everyone here shares the same one
this is about how we're screwing up this Amendment without a care because it temporarely benefits us

like right now
Brendon Urie..
King For A Couple Of Days
Brendon Urie..
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2394

Mibba
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:12pm
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:50pm
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?
Brendon Urie..
King For A Couple Of Days
Brendon Urie..
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2394

Mibba
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:59pm
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?

I do not thinking lying and skewing facts is appropriate. I believe it is a form of slander.
Of course I don't want to hear what I don't want to hear.
But unless it falls under the lines of slander, harassment, or a hate crime I have no right to silence it.
I understand that freedom of speech works both ways.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:06am
druscilla_nesser:
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?

I do not thinking lying and skewing facts is appropriate. I believe it is a form of slander.
Of course I don't want to hear what I don't want to hear.
But unless it falls under the lines of slander, harassment, or a hate crime I have no right to silence it.
I understand that freedom of speech works both ways.
wow...so you just off the bat agree with me?
Brendon Urie..
King For A Couple Of Days
Brendon Urie..
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2394

Mibba
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:38am
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?

I do not thinking lying and skewing facts is appropriate. I believe it is a form of slander.
Of course I don't want to hear what I don't want to hear.
But unless it falls under the lines of slander, harassment, or a hate crime I have no right to silence it.
I understand that freedom of speech works both ways.
wow...so you just off the bat agree with me?
That particular statement you made, yes.
Probably once in a lifetime. Razz
[Meant in the best of ways.]
Matt Smith
Admin
Matt Smith
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 31134

Mibba Blog
March 4th, 2007 at 09:08am
WeFoundTheDuck:

I agree 100% with druscilla_nesser. There is no reason for the American troops to be in Iraq. None. It's their civil war.

So.. America should just let them all kill eachother? Think

You know.. Countries such as my own haven't been involved in wars in the past. In fact, we largely ignored a certain war in the nineties and got a lot of shit because we didn't do anything about it. The whole damn world ignored Rwanda, in fact, and it will always be remembered as the genocide to which the world turned its back.

Now, I'm vociferously anti-war, but is there a difference between making a war worse and intervening just a little bit so less people get hurt?
I would be too idealist to say America should just leave Iraq to blow eachother up. I mean, it is their civil war, we shouldn't try to help.

Hmm. You know, violent intervention is not the only way of intervening. Maybe american troops shouldn't be in Iraq to kill people (which, I like to think they aren't) but to help.
Brendon Urie..
King For A Couple Of Days
Brendon Urie..
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2394

Mibba
March 4th, 2007 at 01:12pm
Bloodraine:
WeFoundTheDuck:

I agree 100% with druscilla_nesser. There is no reason for the American troops to be in Iraq. None. It's their civil war.

So.. America should just let them all kill eachother? Think

You know.. Countries such as my own haven't been involved in wars in the past. In fact, we largely ignored a certain war in the nineties and got a lot of shit because we didn't do anything about it. The whole damn world ignored Rwanda, in fact, and it will always be remembered as the genocide to which the world turned its back.

Now, I'm vociferously anti-war, but is there a difference between making a war worse and intervening just a little bit so less people get hurt?
I would be too idealist to say America should just leave Iraq to blow eachother up. I mean, it is their civil war, we shouldn't try to help.

Hmm. You know, violent intervention is not the only way of intervening. Maybe american troops shouldn't be in Iraq to kill people (which, I like to think they aren't) but to help.

Bush shoved American troops into this war by convincing them that Iraqis were the ones that planned and executed 9/11.
He lied. That was Saudi Arabia.
And now we have this country that is royally pissed off at us for all this shit we're pulling.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 4th, 2007 at 01:28pm
I know I'm not a mod anymore but Jesus Christ people get on topic
there's an Iraq War thread here
Kurtni
Admin
Kurtni
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 34289

Mibba Blog
March 4th, 2007 at 03:24pm
spill_no_sick:
I know I'm not a mod anymore but Jesus Christ people get on topic
there's an Iraq War thread here

Yeah, where are those lazy ass mods, they should be keeping threads on topic. Shifty

Mkay, to restart this discussion again going in the correct direction I'll bring up the freedom of speech and how it relates to censorship just because I like that debate.

The MPAA is responsiable for rating movies. How often do you go to the movies and see a film that is unrated? Rarely if ever, and if you do chances are the theater is private. Anyways, it was founded in 1922. Censorship in that time era was so totally and completely different than what we have now. If you watch old movies from the 20's and 30's, you won't even see married people sharing a bed because that was considered too sexual for the time period. One movie called The Killers was a movie based on a book, and when the film came back after being screened with the editing notes, there was paaaages of things wrong. The way Ava Gardner (star actress of the film for those who arent obsessed with her like me) wore her dress was seen as too sexual in some scenes and they wanted it edited out. They were told to make the scenes where people were murdered less brutal and scenes where people were actually being killed werent even suppose to be on camera. However the director basically said piss off, Im not editing all that out. He did change somethings, but for the most part he kept it the way he had intended it to be, standing up for his right of expression. All this contreversy had built up around this film, which caused it to be a huge success and box office hit, and was Ava Gardners break through role. The Killers received four Academy Award nominations in 1946. If it had been censored, it wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. (whats funny is by todays standards, this movie would have barely made PG-13)

Even though Robert Siodmak (director) did edit some things out, he still stood up for his creative freedom. If he had choose to not edit anything out, his film wouldn't have been shown in any theaters, and the studio he was with would have dropped the project immediately. The MPAA is one gigantic monopoly, consisting of 6 major studios. Those studios are always the ones taken with a much courteous regard than the films released by independant companies recieve. Filmakers know what type of content they are limited to and have to mold around that if they want any kind of box office success. An NC17 is like box office suicide, so basically any film recieving that rating has been judged before it even had a chance. Thats why directors now release unrated versions of films. If you've seen the Hills Have Eyes (rated R) and the unrated version, you know the unrated version is ten times better because there was no limitations placed on it. However, just that NC17 rating would have caused certain stores and rental places to not carry it. But Unrated is perfectly ok with them. Same content, different word. it pisses me off.

I read somewhere that The Black Dahlia was considered for NC17 rating, which it didnt end up getting. I've seen that movie, and it's a pretty accurate represenation of that time. You can't censor history, its just silly. I think the MPAA is suffocating directors freedom of speech and expression daily and its ridiculous. They don't allow what the directors want said to be expressed. How do you guys feel the MPAA affects freedom of speech?
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
March 4th, 2007 at 09:10pm
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?
But all of it's a matter of opinion. If I was to take what you're saying and apply it to real life, then every tabloid, every rumor, every article that is based on a peice of gossip has the potential to be slanderous, simply because it could turn out to be untrue.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 4th, 2007 at 09:33pm
WeFoundTheDuck:
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?
But all of it's a matter of opinion. If I was to take what you're saying and apply it to real life, then every tabloid, every rumor, every article that is based on a peice of gossip has the potential to be slanderous, simply because it could turn out to be untrue.
no, slander is lying/skewing facts for the purpose of the destruction of an establishment or political person
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
March 4th, 2007 at 10:33pm
spill_no_sick:
WeFoundTheDuck:
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?
But all of it's a matter of opinion. If I was to take what you're saying and apply it to real life, then every tabloid, every rumor, every article that is based on a peice of gossip has the potential to be slanderous, simply because it could turn out to be untrue.
no, slander is lying/skewing facts for the purpose of the destruction of an establishment or political person
Don

Oh my god I think I've misunderstood about half of what you're saying. I definately thought slander had a broader definition.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 24
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
March 4th, 2007 at 11:05pm
WeFoundTheDuck:
spill_no_sick:
WeFoundTheDuck:
spill_no_sick:
druscilla_nesser:
I think being able to have the right to say what we want is a blessing.
I like being able to express my opinions and I have a lot of them and they are quite strong.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as I'm not threatening to kill everyone who disagrees me and demeaning them by saying they hump dogs or something.
okay, so what do you think of lying and skewing facts to make a person or establishment look bad?
do you think we should overlook that now?
and what do you think about the stuff you don't want to hear?
should we just silence it?
But all of it's a matter of opinion. If I was to take what you're saying and apply it to real life, then every tabloid, every rumor, every article that is based on a peice of gossip has the potential to be slanderous, simply because it could turn out to be untrue.
no, slander is lying/skewing facts for the purpose of the destruction of an establishment or political person
Don

Oh my god I think I've misunderstood about half of what you're saying. I definately thought slander had a broader definition.
no, lying is protected, but slander is lying with a sinister agenda
it's like making up bullshit to get the president impeached (I'm looking at you everyone who tried that with Clinton and Bush Jr.
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
March 5th, 2007 at 12:00am
spill_no_sick:
no, lying is protected, but slander is lying with a sinister agenda
it's like making up bullshit to get the president impeached (I'm looking at you everyone who tried that with Clinton and Bush Jr.
Gotcha. Up

What it comes down to with me is the fear that if we start separating slander from lies, gossip and opinion, is that free speach itself may suffer.
Matt Smith
Admin
Matt Smith
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 31134

Mibba Blog
March 6th, 2007 at 11:51am
WeFoundTheDuck:
But all of it's a matter of opinion. If I was to take what you're saying and apply it to real life, then every tabloid, every rumor, every article that is based on a peice of gossip has the potential to be slanderous, simply because it could turn out to be untrue.
Tabloids can't lie, they won't lie, because they'll get sued to hell for it. It doesn't stop them being outrageously sensationalist, though. If they wern't, they wouldn't be tabloids.

I wrote a speech about tabloids and (kinda) slander a few months back. Since its almost relevant, I'll post it. It touches on freedom of speech, too. And it references Emo kids and Kate Moss!.

Quote

Trial by tabloid

If you go down to the newsagents today, you may be in for a surprise. Glaring at you from every angle are savage headlines, shrieking down at you in bold black print. Barbaric broadcasts designed to cause maximum damage; you can almost hear the crash as a previously well-respected reputation comes tumbling down into the gutter. In times gone by, justice was served in a courtroom by a judge and jury. Yet nowadays crime and punishment is handed to a new authority: trial by tabloid.

A recent example of tabloid hysteria is the ‘Kate Moss Case’. “EXCLUSIVE: COCAINE KATE” ran the headlines as her drugs faux pas was revealed. The Croydon girl-come-Catwalk queen was the subject of a public crucifixion by the tabloid justice system. Over a year later, the tabloids were still determined to degrade her image further by running headlines such as “MOSS IS A MESS” and branding her a cocaine Queen. Such unashamed hounding and disparaging treatment is deemed acceptable by the Tabloids, ironically, ever the advocates of British justice. How can such harsh treatment ever be deemed just?. True, the actions of many popular figures that front the pages of our tabloids are questionable, but surely such a witch hunt on the part of the press is equally dubious.

It is true of course, that tabloids have always been guilty of sensationalism. As long ago as 1897, reports of Mark Twain’s death appeared in the newspapers. The ‘deceased’, in his own defence, replied; “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” In the 21st century, if anything, our tabloids are much more medieval. Journalists and editors rule over a court of hypocrisy, where a celebrity can be crown prince or princess of the front page one day and by the next they find themselves tossed down into a dungeon of disgrace.

Perhaps the most notorious tabloid of all, The Sun, has been a stalwart ‘Red Top’ for many years. The routine hanging, drawing and quartering of any politician or public figure who dares to go against their values is almost a formality.

Of course, the dark art of a journalist is to cut, paste and twist. Distorting facts is commonplace for the average tabloid hack. Take the example of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who was exposed playing Croquet while acting as prime minister. Public outcry ensued, with demands for him to even resign as deputy prime minister. The truth? Prescott had been enjoying a rare break from duty. Who knows what wild exaggerations will emerge from a dark, cigar smoke filled boardroom in London in the future?.

Another gross exaggeration on the part of the Red Tops was their documentation of the “Emo” subculture in mid August. The Daily mail accused young girls of celebrating self harm and this harmless teenage fad as ‘a cult of suicide’. Do I, ladies and gentlemen, look like the morbid creature the Red Tops would have you believe?

Furthermore, one of the biggest “crimes” our tabloids commit is their maxim of sensationalism before sensitivity. Take the example of Princess Diana, turned from fairytale princess to wicked witch at the will of the press. Before her death, she was hounded by the press. After her death, and even to the present day, she is still placed on a pedestal.

However, distorting facts could be the least of our worries. During the Falklands war, The Sun published perhaps their most infamous headline; “Gotcha”. This first edition was published before the news that the Belgrano had actually sunk. Has it ever been know for a tabloid to miss an opportunity for an exposé?. Our tabloids could be accused of irresponsible reporting in favour of huge headlines.

Perhaps our Tabloid Justice system would care to take example from their European neighbours. Now, ladies and gentleman, I am not suggesting we adopt the euro. The French refuse to plaster political scandal over their front pages and show none of the sensationalism British press thrives on. Compared to our tabloids, the French press may appear strict and prudish. But is that quite true?.

With the pressures of fame ever more prevalent, and it becoming all the more easy for the Z list celebrity or latest Big Brother reject to occupy our front pages, are the standards of journalism truly declining?. For, let us not forget, Tabloid newspapers are very much in demand. And with circulation figures for Red Tops such as The Sun far eclipsing those for the more benign broadsheets, the demand is undeniable. However, where does this leave the reader of the tabloids?. Surely, if there was no demand for such journalism, then I would not need to be here today. Is this a sad reflection of how judgemental our society has become?

Are the tabloids truly the big bad wolf of this tale, or are we, the unsuspecting readers the truly bloodthirsty creatures?
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
March 6th, 2007 at 03:00pm
Slander isn't criminal behavior unless it can be proven that special damage was done to the person in question. So it's incredibly broad.

Basically, the first amendment goes by the honor system. You can say whatever shit you want to, and it should be accurate to the best of your knowledge. Unfortunately, people are lazy and abuse this right. It's definitely a right, but one that people use constantly without thinking...
Addison Montgomery.
Falling In Love With The Board
Addison Montgomery.
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Posts: 7078

Mibba Blog
March 6th, 2007 at 03:35pm
I'm confused 0_0
Register