websurf1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Fred T. wrote:
> > Excellent. There's such a thing as Constitutionally protected speech,
> > under which category satire of public figures falls. So if I want to
> > say that Republicans suck cock and eat ***, I will, and it's legal to
> > boot.
> As long as you are cautious enough to keep saying "republicans" or
> "democrats" or "purple people eaters" or otherwise making it generic,
> you are unfortunately protected. This is because such impolite,
> immature potty-mouth behavior reflects more about YOU than it does
> about your supposed target. Were you adult enough to put a person's
> name to such meaningless attacks, you could indeed be held responsible,
> under a variety of libel/slander laws.
>
> Satire is much more sophisticated than simple juvenile name-calling
> which is what was shown. The only danger to society is that some
> uneducated, non-analytical person might associate your comments with
> truth or valid commentary--which happens often enough. Social
> discourse in our society is sinking to new lows, as you so clearly
> demonstrate. You may say pretty much what you want to say. Most
> adults, on the other hand, have learned to curb such irrational,
> childish, attention-seeking behavior of self-gratification.
>
> (And as I've demonstrated, it's also accurate, assuming that the
> > usual suspects wouldn't go out-of-party for a BJ and use a Democrat
> > underage callboy.)
> Clinton wasn't the only person to bring dishonor and disgrace to
> himself while occuppying the White House--there have been scandals
> aplenty over the years, from pretty much all political parties.
> However, he remains unique in that he is the only person to have been
> proven to engage in said "BJ", in the physical office itself. Hence
> your associating that particular behavior with someone else is entirely
> innappropriate.
I wasn't talking about getting a BJ in the Oval Office (and we wonder
what LBJ (no pun intended) got up to with the young ladies the Secret
Service was reputed to sneak into those sanctified precincts for him as
well). Regardless of the particular federal property in which it
occurs (and again, we do recall a scandal involving Bush I
administration familiars bringing underage gay callboys into the
building, so using 'common sense', that much-abused (and little used)
favorite of conservatives here and abroad, we might extrapolate that
that particular office might have been soiled by tsk tsk tsk debauchery
before.
> > Have an excellent and non-annoying day.
> Certainly will, thanks, since it's easy enough to flush a potty-mouth
> off my screen.
> <cr> blip
Go for it.
You know, you could reconsider the sanctimonious crap about adults and
maturity, and note that the law as it is being construed effectively
demands, as you do, that a speaker identify themselves accurately when
delivering what will presumably be critical commentary (in the broader
interpretation that this modified law will be used not to protect
people from stalking, but will offer the potential to be abused to
chill dissenting speech, a hallmark of illegitimate regimes throughout
history. Aside from diluting legislation intended to protect women
from violence, this would demand that we stand up as forthright
straightmen, deliver our commentary, and then wonder whether the
subject of it (_not_ the intended recipient, since we are _not_
considering point-destination communications, the original venue the
section considers) will be 'annoyed' and take legal action against us.
Unfortunately for those so inclined, 'annoying' speech is legally a
meaningless concept when delivered in a public forum, about and not to
a person. Unfortunately for normal people, and residents of a
democracy, we are currently burdened with a federal administration and
a ruling political party which has an unfortunate habit of responding
to criticism by attacking the speaker. (So that hence I will forgive
myself my transgression of characterizing them in crude immature
terms.) Since we do have the right to do whatever we want, so long as
it does not fall outside an envelope of behavior that is not
proscribed, we need to make use of legal protections for permitted
speech which negate advantages in power which might be used
illegitimately to silence us. I haven't finished researching the right
to publish pseudonymously, but judging from the historical record, it
has a long history of being recognized and protected.
We are talking here about the potential for a law written vaguely, out
of ignorance or by deliberate malfeasance, to be misused to bring about
unconstitutional ends. Nattering and hypocritical propriety of a
socially decorous kind, the flavor used by the conservatives soiling
our culture and our national institutions even as they proclaim that
they are attempting to purify them by reshaping them according to their
defective models, seems misplaced when we are considering the character
and safety of our free society. The proposal that we stand forth in
manly fa****on and fight on the field of honor is laughable in this
light; those inclined to use whatever material power they might have to
coerce others have long urged all except themselves to play by the
rules, but in fact are simply whining loudly when they do not get to
set the terms of interaction. What possible motivation would I have to
let defectives set the terms of my behavior ? Since those defectives
do not represent either our culture, nor our best interests, nor the
law, rather they continually soil those.
|
