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