Musashi's Passion starts some fun

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

Early-enema.jpg
 
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Corossus said:
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.
Click to expand...

read the passage quoted numerous times in this thread.

Though, like xpdnc pointed out, it may not matter since it's parody.
 
Doc Holliday said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
fraidykat said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Doc Holliday said:
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.
Click to expand...


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).
 
fraidykat said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top