Funny, you didn't think that was true when the right was accusing liberals of being unAmerican and unpatriotic, and suggesting that we were working for Saddam.
Some yahoo on an internet board or even someone on talk radio or some talking head TV program saying your un-American for saying something is not the same thing as having a law that could give you a prison term for saying it. If they start locking up people for saying "Where's the WMD?" you would have something similar.
And as for the comments from Liam Reid, the operative words are "warned" and "could lead". Those words suggest a paper tiger warning.
When there is an actual law calling for prison terms then it is not a paper tiger. Even if such laws are rarely enforced they would be like the sodomy laws, where they are paper tiger? If so does that mean they are not big deal and homosexuals in Texas and elsewhere should have just lived with them?
One last comment.......the Vatican needs to stick to things religious, not secular.
The example involving the Catholic hierarchy that I mentions was a case of Bishops dealing with matters of religious doctrine, theology and opinion.
Their own personal stance on pedophilia within the church has been nothing short of offensive so that when it comes to sexuality
These stance hasn't been very offensive, its their practice that has been. Both the actions of the guilty individuals and those who covered it up later.
But crimes committed by church officials does not and should not mean that Catholics lose their freedoms of speech and religious practice.
There is one thing I am very consistent about and that's not liking people telling me where to stick it.
I don't like people telling me what to do either. But that idea hardly is a good defense for things I am criticizing. I am criticizing laws that tell other people what they can and can't do.
You don't have right to yell fire in a crowded theater and you don't have the right to yell Nigger in a pep rally. The reason for both is the same.......people might get hurt.
The justification for the 2nd is far worse then the first. Anything could potentially anger someone and cause them to commit violence. The crime is in the commission of the violence. In any case the things I am talking about wouldn't fall under the idea of "fighting words". It would be more like writing "nigger" on SI, or in a newspaper article or letter at worst, most of it isn't even like that, but rather expressing opinions about ethics, philosophy and religion.
It depends on the employment. This guy was teaching children. That's very different from making boxes. We had a teacher here fired for politicizing the war and recommending his students should participate in anti war rallies.
Something he was doing with the students, possibly on school grounds or during school hours. Would you support that he be suspended for a month without pay if he wrote a letter to the editor of a paper expressing distaste for Bush and opposition to the war, because it was thought that if he is against the war he MIGHT lead students in anti war rallies? That would be the equivalent of the example I quoted.
A good teacher gives his students the pros and cons on a subject and then lets his/her students decide for themselves.
There is no indication that he even discussed the issue with the children or that if he did he didn't let them decide for themselves.
People have been taken to court for saying "Nigger" in public.
"That's also wrong."
Why is it wrong?
Because it strikes at freedom of speech.
Saying negative things in public against a minority is a crime.
Not in the US it isn't. We still have the 1st amendment. You are right that it is in some places but it shouldn't be.
So what.......that doesn't give you the right to disparage gays in public.
It doesn't give me the right, and I have not been exercising that right but I do have the right, just like you have the right to disparage the religious right or Rush Limbaugh has the right to disparage liberal democrats.
So what..........in TX, who listens to the Supreme Ct.?
OK tell me the next time someone is convicted of (voluntary) sodomy in Texas. The law has been found to be unconstitutional and it will not be enforced.
The people who want to read the bible....wish to do so in public settings like a school or gov't bldg.
No it wasn't in a government facility. They could be arrested and possibly imprisoned for reading certain sections of the Bible or calling homosexual acts immoral at any location including in their own churches.
Also do you really think someone should get sent to prison for reading the Bible in school?
No one I've ever read on the subject has provided any evidence that he wants to turn us in to a theocracy.
Maybe not to you but it sures sound like it to me. Those people make my skin crawl.
We have continually moved toward a system where religion is pushed further and further from public life. A theocracy in the US is now less likely as a communist dictatorship.
Also that isn't a defense of the actions I am condemning. Even if he does want to turn us in to a theocracy it doesn't change the fact that the actions I condemned are outrageous, extreme, and wrong.
Not if you believe the guy want to turn us into a theocracy; not if a guy is condemning a minority
No even then. If we can't condemn minorities (or majorities for that matter) without facing a prison term, or if the mere belief that you might like a theocracy is considered justification for sending someone to prison then we no longer live in a free country. Fortunately those laws are not in place in the US, but you seem to be arguing that they should be. That makes MY skin crawl.
Do you think the good ole boys who put in those speed traps are liberal?
Who cares, the action isn't conservative. Liberals and conservatives and people who could not accurately be described as either can be greedy. And it isn't just in the South. Also there are other similarly greedy actions by people all over the political spectrum and all over the US And the world.
Translation please. I don't understand this last statement.
You said you wanted to go through the lists item by item. Fine but to be comparable to my list you should only include examples of people being sent to prison for speech. So far your examples have pretty much been examples of obnoxious busybodies saying "you shouldn't do X", or "I don't like Y". My examples included laws giving up to four years in prison for speech.
Tim |
