Gosh- you must have missed all Haqi's names. Do you want me to copy them to you dear dear little hypocritical Michael? It's lovely how you can see just one side of an issue like that. I began this "discussion" merely citing supreme court language- but that was SO insulting Haqi couldn't contain himself. Let's go to the videotape. I am SURE you will be able to look at this in an unbiased and reasonable manner and I know you'll slap Haqi on the wrist after you see HIS name calling. 'Cause you're such a fair guy.
#1
o:Kevin Rose who
wrote (134765)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 6:37 PM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 134963
Kevin,
No, we don't have to tolerate it. Of course, we can't go around killing them, or
beating them up, and I would never advocate such a thing, but we damned sure
don't have to make them feel comfortable. Verbally harassing them at every
opportunity is just fine with me.
~;=;o --haqi
...............
#2To:haqihana who
wrote (134813)
From: X the Unknown
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 7:10 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134963
>Verbally harassing them at
every opportunity is just fine with me. <
'. . . it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times
and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited
classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been
thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene,
the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their
very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any
exposition of ideas, and are [408 U.S. 901 , 904] of such slight social value as a
step to
truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the
social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is
not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion
safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would
raise no question
under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 309-310, 906.'
315 U.S., at 571 -572. (Footnotes omitted.)
....................
OH MY GOD- how insulting is that! I see what you mean!
#3To:X the Unknown who
wrote (134822)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:01 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134963
X, Sit on it!! Get your jollies for a change.
.............
yeah- this is just polite conversation Michael. I see your point. ROFL
#4To:haqihana who
wrote (134842)
From: X the Unknown
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:08 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134964
"Resort to epithets or personal abuse is
not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by
the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question
under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 309-310, 906.' 315
U.S., at 571 -572. (Footnotes omitted.) "
"The preservation of the right of free
and robust speech is accorded high priority in our society and under the
Constitution. Yet, there are other significant values. One of the hallmarks of a
civilized society
is the level and quality of discourse. We have witnessed in recent years a
disquieting deterioration in standards of taste and civility in speech."
...........
Wow- this was really insulting too. LMAO
#5To:X the Unknown who
wrote (134845)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:16 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134964
X, I never knew you considered me to be civilized. Go watch an abortion. You
seem to be so proud of the fact that such murderous techniques are legal.
.................
#6To:haqihana who
wrote (134851)
From: X the Unknown
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:17 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134964
?
Red Herrings for supper?
Tasty
.....................
#7To:X the Unknown who
wrote (134852)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:19 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134965
X, I don't care what color it is as long as you swallow a bone.
....................
#8To:haqihana who
wrote (134854)
From: X the Unknown
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:23 PM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 134965
Again, not to the point.
Here's something else off topic:
Followed your family saga on Ask God. I've recommended you to the Jerry
Springer folks.
...................
#9To:X the Unknown who
wrote (134859)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:25 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134965
X, Don't believe everything you read. Only the stupid ones do that.
............
#10To:haqihana who
wrote (134862)
From: X the Unknown
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:26 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134965
I don't. I figure it's much much more sordid and tawdry than what I read.
.......
#11
To:X the Unknown who
wrote (134863)
From: haqihana
Monday, Apr 2, 2001 8:31 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134965
X, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. That could lead to
embarrassing situations.
Let's face it. I hate your guts, and you hate mine. I could enjoy verbally abusing you
until hell freezes over, but it just ain't worth the effort. You're not worth the effort it
would take to flick a fly off a horse's ass.
ciao
..........
Michael, I'm just NOT seeing a good argument for your position here- unless you mistakenly addressed me instead of Haqi. In which case I agree. Haqi was calling names. But it's always good when you go away pouting. I've always enjoyed that too. Don't ever change. |
