Musashi's Passion starts some fun

According to Texas v. Johnson (flag burning case), "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Selective restraints based on offensiveness of speech strictly limited: unless speech invades privacy of home or the degree of captivity makes it impractical to avoid exposure, the burden is on the offended person to "avert his or her eyes."
Cohen; Erznoznik


Caveat: Speech that constitutes "fighting words" under the [i]Chaplinsky standard is not protected. But see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (partial restriction of fighting words based on intent to "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others" on basis of race, etc. unconstitutional as viewpoint restriction). Contrast Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for racial motivation in committing aggravated battery upheld).
There is absolutely nothing in the text you've quoted that indicates that anything Musashi did would be considered "fighting words," but, hey, keep telling yourself that you're right. Maybe that'll actually make it true. The meat of that quote is this sentence: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

I suppose that your point that there is indeed speech that may not be protected is valid, but that point is so fucking irrelevant in this situation that you look like an idiot for bringing it up, and I would guess that most of us are also already aware of the "fire in a movie theater" caveat, so you needn't bring that one up, either. Self-ownage is the best kind.

[/list] There is absolutely nothing in the text you've quoted that indicates that anything Musashi did would be considered "fighting words," but, hey, keep telling yourself that you're right. Maybe that'll actually make it true. The meat of that quote is this sentence: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

I suppose that your point that there is indeed speech that may not be protected is valid, but that point is so fucking irrelevant in this situation that you look like an idiot for bringing it up, and I would guess that most of us are also already aware of the "fire in a movie theater" caveat, so you needn't bring that one up, either. Self-ownage is the best kind.

so basically, you read something, then regardless of what it says, you tell the person that there's nothing in what you read that applies. Ok.

What you ignored (purposefully?) in that passage is that speech is not protected if it is meant to offend. I can't imagine why you'd ignore that, but that's neither here nor there since this would be considered parody. In the case of parody, I think that the only problem would be how much of the original work was addressed. If things stray too far off topic, the protection erodes.

now, would you like to actually discuss that, or are you still busy stroking yoru e-penis?

edit: you know what? fuck it. I try, for once, not to be a prick when arguing something (yeah, i'm far too abrasive most of the time) and guess what? Everyone else takes up the slack. I should know better than to try to have a decent discussion when religion is involved.

way 2 gay up the thread

I am Brasstax, bringer of ancient cleansing techniques. You are all hereby cleansed of your sins.

http://www.medicaltoys.com/Early-enema.jpg

:rofl: @ Brasstax

Wow.....just wow.....I love this place :)

Next step, the pope

Thread started up funny, but those need to have their undies surgically removed from their crack ruined it.

Where does it say offensive speech is not protected fraidykat. Was this guy forced to download the flash and watch itover and over again by musashi? no.

goddamn i didn't even get to post inside the first 10 pages

fraidykat: There is nothing listed in there indicating that offensive statements are considered illegal other then those that invade privacy. In other words, its presented to you in such a way that you cannot escape it. It says right there in the quote that it is up to the individual to avoid exposure. Now if I present it in a way that you cannot escape the offensive material, even in the sanctuary of your own home then I would be in violation of this rule. Thats damn near impossible to do. You can always change web pages, turn the channel, or hang up on the person on the phone. The only situation I see this ever happening is someone outside your home yelling offensive statements at you using a megaphone.

Selective restraints based on offensiveness of speech strictly limited: unless speech invades privacy of home or the degree of captivity makes it impractical to avoid exposure, the burden is on the offended person to "avert his or her eyes."

Where does it say offensive speech is not protected fraidykat. Was this guy forced to download the flash and watch itover and over again by musashi? no.

read the passage quoted numerous times in this thread.

Though, like xpdnc pointed out, it may not matter since it's parody.

Thread started up funny, but those need to have their undies surgically removed from their crack ruined it.

fraidykat: There is nothing listed in there indicating that offensive statements are considered illegal other then those that invade privacy. In other words, its presented to you in such a way that you cannot escape it.

did you guys just not read this:

Caveat: Speech that constitutes "fighting words" under the Chaplinsky standard is not protected. But see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (partial restriction of fighting words based on intent to "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others" on basis of race, etc. unconstitutional as viewpoint restriction). Contrast Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for racial motivation in committing aggravated battery upheld).

again, since xpdnc reminded me that it's parody, other rules would apply.

Anyone who was offended by Musashi's flash AND NOT offended by Mel's shitty movie, is an idiot and a hypocrite.

What gives Mad Max the right to make hundreds of millions of dollars on his view of a religious event, while it is offensive for Mushash to make fun of the same movie.

I've read the passage. Maybe you can bold it for me.

edit. nevermind i see you bolded the caveat already. Dont waste more html for me

did you guys just not read this:

Caveat: Speech that constitutes "fighting words" under the Chaplinsky standard is not protected. But see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (partial restriction of fighting words based on intent to "arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others" on basis of race, etc. unconstitutional as viewpoint restriction). Contrast Wisconsin v. Mitchell (penalty enhancement for racial motivation in committing aggravated battery upheld).

again, since xpdnc reminded me that it's parody, other rules would apply.


Making fun of something is hardly considered fighting words and rasism is nowhere to be found here. He is not preaching for the destruction of a race or religion here.

I really didn't want to post in this thread again, but I will quickly clarify why fraidykat is wrong so maybe he will shutup already:

If you've ever seen The People vs. Larry Flynt, you might remember the SCOTUS case that the last half of the movie centered around. Jerry Falwell attempted to sue Mr.Flynt because of a Campari ad parody that suggested Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.

The reason SCOTUS ruled in favor of Larry Flynt, and the reason we have such "parody law" is because no reasonable person who read the Campari ad would have any reason to conclude that there was any truth to the ad. There was no danger of anyone actually believing Jerry Falwell fucked his mom in an outhouse, and the intent was obviously humorous.

This flash falls under the exact same guidelines. Sure, you can make a case that it is offensive, but fortunately, simply being offensive is not enough for it not to be covered by the first amendment. It must be proven that offense was the intent of the flash, which it clearly was not.

Leave it to a person who's religion is biased against homosexuals to gay a thread up.

Making fun of something is hardly considered fighting words and rasism is nowhere to be found here. He is not preaching for the destruction of a race or religion here.


Number one, the making fun is parody, which i've said (like 5 times now) that I forgot to consider. In your reply, you merely said that there was nothing in the passage which said that offensive words weren't protected. I corrected you (although you still skipped over the part where things merely meant to upset or alarm aren't protected). Even then, I still reminded you that what was being discussed wouldn't apply since it was parody (and I had forgotten about parody).