Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

You're all taking freedom of expression to a ridiculous and unneccesary extreme. There are abuses of this freedom - very obvious ones such as slander, threats and treason. It's naive to say that freedom of expression is an unlimited right. And giving people free reign to offend others just because they feel like it is not an honorable exercise of that freedom. It's not going to make the world a better place to allow people to be disgusting in public just for shock value. Please think about the implications of what you say before you put freedom of expression on a pedestal, for god's sake.

 

[cookiecutter]

Think about what you're saying. What if I was offended by the word "damn"? Should it be illegal to say then? As I said it is an impossible line to pinpoint because what offends people varies from person to person. Since that is an impossible task, we should follow what is more pragmatic, which is to give people more freedom instead of less.

Also please don't straw man us. Defamation and treason are already against the law. We (at least me) are instead just saying that being offensive in any way, even in a hateful way should be legal in free societies.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Hate definitely has a tolerance level that becomes violent, which should obviously be illegal, though.

 

[cookiecutter]

But violence is illegal. Hate speech should be legal. The potential for being violent does not give anyone the right to stop you. It's only if you act on that potential.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Eh, I don't really care to argue this with you. Not worth it at all. I can understand both sides and it's too much of a precarious issue for me to feel morally right believing one side wholly.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Think about what you're saying. What if I was offended by the word "damn"? Should it be illegal to say then? As I said it is an impossible line to pinpoint because what offends people varies from person to person. Since that is an impossible task, we should follow what is more pragmatic, which is to give people more freedom instead of less.

Also please don't straw man us. Defamation and treason are already against the law. We (at least me) are instead just saying that being offensive in any way, even in a hateful way should be legal in free societies.

Pointing out defamation and treason might not have been needed, but it was merely in response to your statement that "there are no abuses of freedoms".

The thing is, there are appropriate times and places for saying offensive things. Society has many such means for this - i.e. through art, literature and websites. There are ways to be as offensive as you want, but it isn't at all necessary to your freedom for you to be able to offend people at will in public, when they have no way of avoiding you.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

But violence is illegal. Hate speech should be legal. The potential for being violent does not give anyone the right to stop you. It's only if you act on that potential.

Again, this is where I believe context comes into play. If you're expressing hateful opinions through art, literature, or some kind of information source that people can easily ignore, then I see no problem with that. But if you walk into a church and start cursing God in front of the entire congregation, you're most certainly abusing your freedom.

 

[cookiecutter]

Pointing out defamation and treason might not have been needed, but it was merely in response to your statement that "there are no abuses of freedoms".

The thing is, there are appropriate times and places for saying offensive things. Society has many such means for this - i.e. through art, literature and websites. There are ways to be as offensive as you want, but it isn't at all necessary to your freedom for you to be able to offend people at will in public, when they have no way of avoiding you.

Again, this is where I believe context comes into play. If you're expressing hateful opinions through art, literature, or some kind of information source that people can easily ignore, then I see no problem with that. But if you walk into a church and start cursing God in front of the entire congregation, you're most certainly abusing your freedom.

Inappropriateness and appropriateness are completely separate from legality. As tasteless and inappropriate as cursing in public or whatever is, how can you argue that it should be illegal. Also I think a lot of the extreme examples you suggest would likely be crimes under "disturbing the peace" or something like that. The message expressed should never be what is criminal.

 

[skeptik]

What is decency? What is appropriateness? What is tastelessness? These questions (or rather, the answer to these questions) are as open and amorphous as is the question "what is art?". There is no one single, sensible, indisputable answer to these questions. There are, in fact, millions upon millions of answers to these questions, so how can we possibly adopt one that restricts the freedoms of millions upon millions of these answers? The law leans toward the side of liberality in expression because the line of appropriateness is amorphous. There is nothing outright criminal about being naked. There is nothing illegal about expressing hatred for another person's beliefs. It is another matter when these activities violate the rights of others. If you barge into a church ranting and raving, that is disturbing the peace. If you threaten physical or mental harm toward someone because of their beliefs or their person, that can fall under a number of categories, including hate speech. But when these things don't infringe upon the rights of others, you don't have any right to restrict their activities. It's that simple. You and most of the world may find something inappropriate, tasteless, and indecent, but that doesn't make it criminal.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm not a fan of Noam Chomsky, but he said something I agree with wholeheartedly:

If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Even if you're cursing God in front of a congregation, you still have every right in the world to do it.

 

[skeptik]

The act of saying it in itself, but not insofar as it's disturbing the peace, trespassing on private property, and many other laws that it can possibly infringe upon depending on the circumstance.

 

[Zephyrus]

Led Zeppelin Guitarist Wants World Tour


TOKYO — Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page said Monday he was ready to take the iconic band on a world tour after burning up the stage at last month's reunion concert in London. But it probably won't be before September.

"The amount of work we put into O2 was what you would normally put into a world tour anyway," Page, 64, said of the intense rehearsing the band did for the Dec. 10 concert at London's O2 Arena.

The band's three surviving members — Page, singer Robert Plant and bassist-keyboardist John Paul Jones — were joined at the sold-out benefit show by the late John Bonham's son Jason on drums.

Page, who was in Japan to promote the new Zeppelin release, "Mothership," said the two-hour-plus concert was proof that Led Zeppelin can still perform at its best.

He said the band, which formed in 1968, was ready musically to get back together and take it out on a wider run, but it was not clear when it would go on tour as the singer had other plans.

"Robert Plant has a parallel project and he is busy with that until September," Page said.

Plant and bluegrass star Alison Krauss will begin their world tour with a run of shows in the southern U.S. this spring. The two released an album in October called "Raising Sand" that debuted at No. 2 on the Billboard chart in the U.S. The duo will tour Europe in May before returning for North American shows still to be announced for June and July.

Page said the band set their standards very high before agreeing to do the reunion, their first in 20 years. Led Zeppelin broke up in 1980 after the elder Bonham's death.

Page said they rehearsed for weeks, apprehensive that the cohesion they had in the 1970s when they were at their peak might be hard to rediscover.

"We wanted people who might not have even been alive in 1980 when we finished to understand what we were," he said.

Page said all went well until he broke a finger in three places, forcing the band to postpone the show for several weeks.

"But we did the show, and it was great," he said. "It was instant in terms of chemistry."

.

 

[The Ozzman]

Meh

 

[Hatebreeder]

God, I really want to see them, even if they're old, decrepit, and missing the most important member. Why, Bonzo, why?!

Probably won't bother with Southern California, though. Tickets are likely fucking expensive and hard to come by, anyway.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

In the days of thier youth, they didn't know they'd attempt such a major cashgrab...

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

meh, shit band.

 

[mutantllama]

meh, shit band.

Fuck off.

 

[Zephyrus]

I'd love to see this band live, perhaps with my uncle who was a big fan of them back in the 70's.

 

[skeptik]

Coulter: I Will Vote for Hillary Over McCain

February 01, 2008 10:38 AM

In case you missed it, on Hannity & Colmes last night, controversial pundit Ann Coulter -- who supports Mitt Romney for president -- said she would back Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"She's more conservative that he is," she said. "She will be stronger on the war on terrorism...I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

Watch it HERE.

There might be a few issues where McCain and Clinton hold the same position -- campaign finance reform, immigration reform, global warming, the patients' bill of rights.

And for that reason, many conservatives loathe McCain -- as we covered last night on World News. (Read it HERE, watch it HERE.)

Coulter says McCain has been more liberal than Clinton on the interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo because he has made an issue of it and she's hasn't, really. (Of course, he was tortured as a prisoner of war.)

Factually, it's a ludicrous claim. On judges, abortion, same sex marriage, taxes, health care, the war in Iraq, and on and on…he's demonstrably more conservative.

Clinton's 2006 vote ratings from liberal groups: Americans for Democratic Action - 95%; ACLU - 83%; League of Conservation Voters - 71%.

Her 2006 ratings from conservative groups: National Taxpayers Union - 17%; Americans Conservative Union - 6%; Club for Growth - 8%; Family Research Council - 0%.

McCain's liberal group ratings: ADA - 15%; ACLU - 33%; LCV - 29%.

And conservative group: NTU - 88%; ACU - 65%; CFG - 76%; FRC - 62%.

It's silliness to pretend otherwise.

But it does get at how much blind rage against McCain drives some of these conservative commentators.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/coulter-i-will.html

 

[The Ozzman]

She's a stupid bitch anyway. Fuck her.