midniterider Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 It's not illegal because it offends people. It's illegal because we as a society have determined that allowing such things causes real harm; specifically to children. 'Causes real harm' vs 'offends people'. Tomato/tomawto, sir. Does a sex 'offender' offend people or cause real harm? The "we don't have the right to not be offended' schtick is not a universal truth. It's just a meme that contains some truth. The meme "guns dont' kill people, people kill people' also contains some truth but is not absolute perfect truth nor is it completely sincere. But you win. Enjoy your meme. I'll enjoy mine. I won't be posting the dictionary definition of the word 'offend.' Have a nice day. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 that is not what i was talking about at all. Masturbation is not free speech. It may be free expression but that is not guaranteed in my country. speech even unpopular speech is by law. hate speech not so much but as long as you can be well spoken civil and refrain from slurs even that is mostly allowed. People can be offended all they want. Christians are often offended by other peoples free speech to disagree with them and their wild claims, we have every right to say it and they have every right to feel offended if they want. it changes nothing. I feel that all humans are born with this right it is not something that governments grant or power bestows. It is something we are born with in my opinion. You are not planning on wanking it in public are you? I was mostly trying to say that 'offense' has more than one meaning. One criminal , one non-criminal. Not planning on wanking in public. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 'Causes real harm' vs 'offends people'. Tomato/tomawto, sir. Not legally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle The basis of comparison is that in some cases, psychological or social harm may be comparable to physical harm. The difference is based on the assumption that offense may cause harm, but does not necessarily cause harm. An offense meets the harm principle only if it is a wrong and also causes harm. The ethical question as to what extent there should be constraints on free speech is often grounded in both the harm principle and the offense principle. If the exercise of free speech can be causally linked to violence or similar physical harm, it is constrained under the harm principle. Free speech actions such as burning a flag or holding controversial rallies usually fall under the offense principle instead, based on the corresponding question of what constitutes harm (or, alternately, weighing harm caused by limiting a freedom vs harm caused by the exercise of that freedom).[5] Does a sex 'offender' offend people or cause real harm? He or she harms their victims, absolutely. Not sure why this question though as it has nothing to do with free speech, which as I show above, may be offensive to some, but is not limited unless it can be shown to produce real harm as a byproduct. Have a nice day. :-) You mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparklingphoenix Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 The abortion sign is back! This time it is significantly smaller and there is a sign the precedes it saying "warning, graphic material ahead." I'm pretty sure someone else complained about the sign last year. I didn't get the best picture of it, but the images are pretty gruesome. There are bloody fetuses and deformed fetuses on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The abortion sign is back! This time it is significantly smaller and there is a sign the precedes it saying "warning, graphic material ahead." I'm pretty sure someone else complained about the sign last year. I didn't get the best picture of it, but the images are pretty gruesome. There are bloody fetuses and deformed fetuses on the board. Always nice to have a warning message. Still, you could pretend vomit in front of it. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparklingphoenix Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 The abortion sign is back! This time it is significantly smaller and there is a sign the precedes it saying "warning, graphic material ahead." I'm pretty sure someone else complained about the sign last year. I didn't get the best picture of it, but the images are pretty gruesome. There are bloody fetuses and deformed fetuses on the board. Always nice to have a warning message. Still, you could pretend vomit in front of it. :-) There were two note books sitting nearby, one for pro choice and one for pro life. I signed the pro life one. In their faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 No one has a right to NOT be offended. I partially agree with this. Though society's rules are a general survey of what on average offends people. :-) Like public nudity or public masturbation seems to bother Amuricans. If only I could unsubscribe to what offends me in real life as easily as I can unsubscribe to a Facebook feed life, would be grand. :-) Tell me where open and public masturbation is accepted in the first world as a normal everday occurance? Nudity yes but masturbation is a different story. Nowhere. Because it offends people. :-) so i guess people do have the right to be offended. That still doesn't mean they get to dictate what is and what will be. Within the context of people expressing their opinions as a 1st amendment right, nobody has the right to not be offended. Outside that context, there are definitely some things that are offensive and society has outlawed them. :-) I agree that some things are offensive to the majority and therefore a limit is imposed and it should be. If the majority find anything at fault they should by definition as the majority decide when and how to change or not change. I love the fact that there are limits to expression but I also love the fact that I can push and press those limits to see if they can be redefined by the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Actually, the bill of rights is specifically designed to protect the minority from mob rule in addition to limiting government. I'd hope for a right to be limited, there is a more compelling reason than something that just offends most people. For instance, public nudity can at least be argued to harm children or create an unsafe environment for them. Nazis offend most people, yet we still, rightly so, let them have parades, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaitingInfinity Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Campus preachers are all over my college campus too, yelling at girls and calling them whores and sinners. The funny thing is that lots of Christians will stand around or near them and pray or shout that this man is not representative of Christianity. Recently, this one student has taken to standing near the preachers for hours with a sign that reads "Don't feed the troll. He is trying to provoke you so he can sue you for $$$." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Wrong. I and the courts disagree. I don't know why you're also providing a list of exceptions because showing abortion pics is not one of them. You're trying to equate laws that seek to protect people from real harm with ideas, not illegal, that just piss you off. Take your local abortion protestors to court and see just how far that gets you. It's not about me being pissed off. I wasn't even there. And you know a lawsuit won't work because the jury will mostly be Southern Baptist. The Christian majority does not play fair. While you and I do not agree on where the line on free speech vs. harassment should be drawn at least we both want the protection extended evenly to everybody. If that had been a muslim billboard you know it wouldn't go to court because the guy who put it up would be dead and the police would have no leads. Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired. What you are arguing has nothing to do with a flawed justice system. You just don't seem to understand the principles behind free speech and you are equivocating those few exceptions with what you personally consider harassment. The fact is, showing pictures of fetuses is protected speech. A muslim billboard would also be protected free speech, unless it was a call to Jihad or something equally ridiculous and potentially truly harmful to the community. What would happen to the Muslim who chose to hire a board in the first place is outside the purview of the law. The courts don't have the power to stop every nutter from overreacting, but they do have the power to legally protect the Muslim's right to display his message. Got it. If some kook wants to put a megaphone in your face and blast you until your ear drums don't work he is just exercising his rights and you have to sit there and take it till you are deaf. Because it isn't harassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Because that's exactly what I said.. :eyeroll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Because that's exactly what I said.. :eyeroll: You've been ignoring what I have been saying. You keep coming back with how offended I am by the message when that is irrelevant to my argument. I don't care about what the message is. I don't care how offensive the message is. I am saying that no message should be sent using methods that are harassment. I talk about the method and whether this method is acceptable. You change the subject to the content of the message, how offended I am by said content (really I am not offended by it) and free speech. I have nothing against free speech but this isn't a blank check to annoy people through harassing tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 You have a serious issue finding offenses that aren't there. I'm not the first one to tell you this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Campus preachers are all over my college campus too, yelling at girls and calling them whores and sinners. The funny thing is that lots of Christians will stand around or near them and pray or shout that this man is not representative of Christianity. Recently, this one student has taken to standing near the preachers for hours with a sign that reads "Don't feed the troll. He is trying to provoke you so he can sue you for $$$." Calling random people whores and sinners could be classified as disturbing the peace. Maybe slander. Depending on the person's demeanor his propensity to harm himself or others might be a concern. Especially if the other Christians think he's a whack job. :-) But if he appears harmless, I'd ignore him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 You have a serious issue finding offenses that aren't there. I'm not the first one to tell you this. What does that mean? Anyway, we are very far from the original topic so perhaps you should PM me instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 So I am on the bus right now and at every single stop there is a pastor or church man waiting with what they call "literature." They try to hand it out to every student that gets off the bus. This really annoys the shit out of me. Is this an okay thing to do? Almost every month there are religious fanatics that yell through megaphones at the students to repent and turn to Jesus at the student center. There is also a rapping duo who rap about god through blaring speakers in the most populated part of campus. Last year a pro-life group erected an enormouse, probably 1 story high poster of bloody and deformed fetuses. It was really disturbing, and I don't want to see that. I can tolerate all this but it really does get on my nerves to be bombarded with this on my university campus every day. I'm here to educate myself, I don't want to be bothered by religion here. What do you guys think? I know I'm living in the American south and I don't have the ability to leave quite yet, but sometimes I just get so tired of the overwhelming obsession with Christianity here, and I feel like I can't get away from it sometimes. My mom also got me to watch a Christian movie. I wouldn't have watched it if I knew it was Christian propaganda, but it's called," Moms' Night Out." She said it was really funny and would be nice to watch with he daughter. Maybe I'll write a review about it somewhere else but it was so stereotypical and trite, I couldn't finish it and we quit watching. Maybe I've just been over exposed to religion lately. Ahhhhh!!!!!!! Littlena, this sounds exactly like UCF (University of Central FL) where I attended. There was a designated "free speech" zone and there wasn't much that anyone could do about it. Some students found very creative ways to address the issue. See the UCF Jedi for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts