Musashi's Passion starts some fun

http://www.metalhordes.com/misc/sinners.jpg

This thread was kind of cool up until page 8, but then rafa stopped posting :(

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.


Buddy, every post I've seen from you (in ANY thread) has made it abundantly clear that you are a prick all the way to your marrow.

It is also very clear you're not a lawyer. Why not keep your arguments at kiddy pool level, so you don't drown?

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.

Dude, for the love of God. I said that what I said before wouldn't apply since I FORGOT ABOUT PARODY. I understand that parody gives quite a bit more protection. I'm not even arguing the offensive issue anymore in relation to the flash, i'm just pointing out to those who are mistaken about non-parody offensiveness that they're ignoring parts of the rule. Regarding Musashi's flash, the ONLY THING that I was still arguing is the rule regarding how much of a previous work is used. No-one's talking about that though, they're still arguing over something that I said I was mistaken on (since I forgot about parody).

I've been a prick in the past while arguing (see: the SA vs TW thread) but I fail to see how i've been anything but reasonable in this one.

"Parody" isn't even the crux of the debate, "intent" is, which is why you sound even dumber when you say you "forgot about parody," because it also seems like you forgot what the law is really here for.

Buddy, every post I've seen from you (in ANY thread) has made it abundantly clear that you are a prick all the way to your marrow.

It is also very clear you're not a lawyer. Why not keep your arguments at kiddy pool level, so you don't drown?

that's productive. thanks for your contribution

"Parody" isn't even the crux of the debate, "intent" is, which is why you sound even dumber when you say you "forgot about parody," because it also seems like you forgot what the law is really here for.

putting parody aside, if the intent is to anger people, it isn't protected. that's spelled out plainly. care to explain that statement? or are you just gonna huff and puff and talk about how smart you are?

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).


I didn't even bother discussing the second part of that decision due to its irrelevance. I do not see how it applies to what we aer discussing here. If you didn't mean this then I guess we aren't on the same page.

putting parody aside, if the intent is to anger people, it isn't protected. that's spelled out plainly. care to explain that statement? or are you just gonna huff and puff and talk about how smart you are?

In oft-cited language, Justice John Paul Harlan wrote:

For while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves manners of taste and style so largely to the individual.
This ruling established that fighting words should be confined to direct personal insults.

The Chaplinsky standard is still envoked on occasion but in recent years it has been further defined as shown above.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter. org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=fighting _words

Nice site. It also discusses a case that happened here in Chicago that might be alittle more closely related to something such as Mushasi's flash. Its no where near as direct and insulting as what happened in Chicago so I think this is all a moot point.

putting parody aside, if the intent is to anger people, it isn't protected.

Which then leaves the burden of proof on the accuser to prove that the intent was to anger people, which you (nor anyone else) haven't, can't, and won't.

People getting angry != intent on behalf of a flash cartoon to incite said anger.

So putting aside parody, you're still wrong.

Which brings me back to my first question in this thread:

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

In oft-cited language, Justice John Paul Harlan wrote:

For while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves manners of taste and style so largely to the individual.
This ruling established that fighting words should be confined to direct personal insults.

The Chaplinsky standard is still envoked on occasion but in recent years it has been further defined as shown above.

Ok, thanks. I was wrong. Thanks for acting like you're older than 5 years old about it too.

Which then leaves the burden of proof on the accuser to prove that the intent was to anger people, which you (nor anyone else) haven't, can't, and won't.

People getting angry != intent on behalf of a flash cartoon to incite said anger.

So putting aside parody, you're still wrong.

Which brings me back to my first question in this thread:

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Hey giga, fuck you. I tried to not be a prick like I was the last time we got into an argument and I got shit rained down all over me. Like I should expect anything more from a person of your quality.

gay gay gay

Ok, thanks. I was wrong. Thanks for acting like you're older than 5 years old about it too.


Then stop fucking posting! Digging that hole deeper with each post.

Ok, thanks. I was wrong. Thanks for acting like you're older than 5 years old about it too.


Thanks. :) Of course this might further be refined or "redefined" by another court of law. The law is always changing. =/

Imagine lawyers 500 years from now. All the cases they can cite when trying to prove a point. Sheesh.

Hey giga, fuck you. I tried to not be a prick like I was the last time we got into an argument and I got shit rained down all over me. Like I should expect anything more from a person of your quality.

Look dipshit, it's not my fault you pick the most retarded shit to "discuss" at the most retarded times.

If you want to be treated like less of a shitstain, stop fucking acting like one.

Then stop fucking posting! Digging that hole deeper with each post.

what?

Then stop fucking posting! Digging that hole deeper with each post.

He was dicussing the situation based on what he read. I read it alittle differently then him and dug around for info supporting my claim. Nothing wrong with that. Hell, its great to see someone admit they were wrong. Very few people do, they usually just disappear or resort to name calling.

I am one of the few people here to have admitted to being wrong about something to. We are a rare breed. :(

what?

Way to play dumb :rolleyes:
















































Oh wait you're not playing. :p

Look dipshit, it's not my fault you pick the most retarded shit to "discuss" at the most retarded times.

If you want to be treated like less of a shitstain, stop fucking acting like one.

retarded? it's a subject that interests me because of my major. You have a bug up your ass about some silly argument last week so you've gotta play mister e-penis. Good for you. I learned a lesson and tried to apply it, but you've gotta uphold your TW reputation. You're a cool dude.

He was dicussing the situation based on what he read. I read it alittle differently then him and dug around for info supporting my claim. Nothing wrong with that. Hell, its great to see someone admit they were wrong. Very few people do, they usually just disappear or resort to name calling.

I am one of the few people here to have admitted to being wrong about something to. We are a rare breed. :(


Yeah I admit it too, then I crawl back in my hole.