Musashi's Passion starts some fun
- Thread starter Colosus
- Start date
Chic0 said:
Couple things,
First I really doubt this guy has much of a real connection with the church. As one of the earlier articles linked stated this guy is more a slef styled wannabe hick with a pope hat.
Second, As a christian I don't find Musashi's flash offensive, my guess is that most sensible ones also would not. It tells the story pure and simple, it adds humour and as far as I can tell that's not against any rules i've read.
If humour makes people pay attention the same way excessive violence in the actual film mad people pay attention...good!
Jesus Died for ours sins, he can handle a litle humour is my guess if it informs people at least on some level.
ThisIsNotMyName
Contributor
an around here we call this a twenty twen twen!!!
fraidykat said:
Except it wasn't meant to arouse anger.
Parody = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parody
see also ridicule
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridicule
Posting in this epic thread for one reason:
Because I want to go to hell with all my TW brethren. Meet and greet at Hooters by the Palace of the Dark Lord on the day of our reckoning, fellas?
(I had two reasons. I wanted to make :nag: a standard issue smiley. But it has been done. Hooray!)
Because I want to go to hell with all my TW brethren. Meet and greet at Hooters by the Palace of the Dark Lord on the day of our reckoning, fellas?
(I had two reasons. I wanted to make :nag: a standard issue smiley. But it has been done. Hooray!)
fraidykat said:Yeah, I'm sure that he meant this in the nicest way possible. He didn't want to piss anyone off at all
there's a difference which i'm sure you're able to see but choose not to, of wanting ONLY to piss people off and wanting to give humor to some and piss some off
FalseMyrmidon
1700+
The quote at the top of the page:
TribalWar.com: Heaven of Heavens
TribalWar.com: Heaven of Heavens
xpdnc....
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
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 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).