Musashi's Passion starts some fun

So let me get this straight... and I'm assuming that the info provided in the first post is the whole of what both parties said.

Someone complained about a Musashi film. Then Colosus accuses the person of not understanding free speech.

Am I the only one who sees the irony?
I never said he COULDN'T complain, just that his complaint was stupid. The free speech portion was simply to stop any legal action he might have tried to throw out there on another response.

That part's already been covered scythe.

Shade told me not to read through the whole thread, so I didn't.

I never said he COULDN'T complain, just that his complaint was stupid. The free speech portion was simply to stop any legal action he might have tried to throw out there on another response.

If this has been coverd already i'm not going to bring up another discussion about it.

Understood.

Shade told me not to read through the whole thread, so I didn't.

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAA. Dumb move man, dumb move.

can someone give cliffs on the thread?

Cardinal DeWald
Church of Mountain Dew

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I do not believe in all of your teachings DeWald.

I'm splitting and starting the Church Of LiveWire. http://www.mega-content.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/unsortierte/dance2.gif

I'm worshipping in the Church of (Diet) Mountain Dew right now.

I do not believe in all of your teachings DeWald.

I'm splitting and starting the Church Of LiveWire. http://www.mega-content.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/unsortierte/dance2.gif
Blasphemer! There shall be no virgins for you in the afterlife.

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.

I wasn't gonna respond, since there's no sense arguing with cretins and zealots and others in the thread have abundantly pointed out your idiocy, but what you evidently fail to understand is that the precedent you ignorantly cite very strictly limits what can even be defined as "fighting words" and provides the very specific context in which those "fighting words" are not considered to be protected speech. There is absolutely nothing to prevent me from saying something with the express purpose of pissing you off, like this: you are one seriously dumb motherfucker. See, that statement may be true, but I didn't make it for any other reason than to piss you off. Gonna sue me? Good luck with that.

Now, if I threatened to kill you because you're a seriously dumb motherfucker and followed up with that threat, then if I were ultimately caught, the DA prosecuting me could try to prove that I killed you because you were stupid and argue that I was committing a hate crime. In that very specific instance, my statement calling you a seriously dumb motherfucker wouldn't be considered protected speech. Get it yet?

Stop gaying up this thread. Come to think of it, I'll stop gaying it up now, too.

laughing out loud at this thread.

This is hall of fame worthy.

I do not believe in all of your teachings DeWald.

I'm splitting and starting the Church Of LiveWire. http://www.mega-content.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/unsortierte/dance2.gif

Splitter!!!


(Can I join your church? Actually, I'll only join if you can guarantee the availability of Live Wire year-round.)

/bows to Col.

I will be your first convert to the CMD (Church of Mt. Dew.)

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.


man, if offensive speech were against the law, South Park wouldn't have made it past season 1.

Splitter!!!


(Can I join your church? Actually, I'll only join if you can guarantee the availability of Live Wire year-round.)

VES, don't really have the commitment for a year-round church, that's the reason for the LiveWire branching. :D

hahaha :lol: :rofl:

Wow, Colosus, while I agree with you about the free speech, that video is pretty brutal.

I'd like to say free speech is the most important, but I actually have some qualms with that video, and I don't even believe in the religion. I'd love to say our rights are, above all, the most important, but somehow, I can't bring myself to say it after that video...

Man, that was a brutal vid. The other ones were real funny though. :)

Wow, Colosus, while I agree with you about the free speech, that video is pretty brutal.

I'd like to say free speech is the most important, but I actually have some qualms with that video, and I don't even believe in the religion. I'd love to say our rights are, above all, the most important, but somehow, I can't bring myself to say it after that video...

Man, that was a brutal vid. The other ones were real funny though. :)
Did you go see the Passion? If not, you should and you'll find the video more humorous. While not one of Musashi's greatest works, it is definitely to most controversial which is why I will protect it with everything I have.