Georgia Lawmaker Claims 'Making Fun Of Someone' Isn't Protected Speech; Seeks To Outlaw Vulgar Photoshopping
from the pics-pics-pics dept
There are a certain number of people in America that have the mistaken idea that there is some sort of right to not be offended by the speech of others. This, of course, stands in direct contrast to the 1st amendment, but not everyone is fully up on constitutional law. The problem is that when it's members of the government who are confused, we've got a massive competency problem. We've covered earlier examples of this, such as when some New York State senators thought that curtailing free speech was a valid reaction to some folks taking offense. Rhode Island had a similar idea and it was similarly stupid. That said, misguided as these attempts are, at least they are usually made as a result of some vocal minority in the constituency voicing their concern or anger.Not the case in the story that gort-o-matic provides. In this instance, Georgia state lawmaker Earnest Smith wants to fine anyone who prank photoshops an image of someone $1000... after someone did it to him.
You see, some devious, twisted human being placed His Earnestness's head on the body of a porn star. He did this for public consumption on the blog Georgia Politics Unfiltered. The porn star has a very nice body. He is a porn star, after all. And he is not Ron Jeremy.It's difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with Walker's assessment of how free speech in the United States works. Fortunately, that difficulty can be set aside, since Smith earnestly supplied the following reply to Fox News:
The human being behind this affrontery has come forward. His name is Andre Walker. It is unknown if he was moved by the boast on His Earnestness's own Web site that says he is both "accessible" and "audacious."
However, Walker told Fox News: "The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects all forms of speech, not just spoken word."
"No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right."Take a moment and drink that in. The statement is as impressive as it is incorrect. I say impressive, because in the world of long-winded politicians, you rarely see such a combination of wrongness and brevity. But, in case anyone in our midst is inclined to agree with Smith (who we have to assume is somehow offended at portrayals of him having pornstar-level man-junk), let me disabuse them of the idea that the first amendment doesn't allow offensive speech.
There is a somewhat well-known anecdote involving a dictionary writer in days long past who is approached on the street by a conservative women's group. The group congratulates him on not including any offensive words in the dictionary. In reply, the writer congratulates the women on their steadfast dedication to looking for offensive words. The point of that story is that there are people in our world who look for any and every opportunity to be offended. We do not protect the rights of American Nazi's to march in Skokie, IL because we like that speech. We protect it because opening the door to the opportunistically offended to censor speech, even vulgar speech, is unacceptable. The end result would be the censorship of Salman Rushdie.
The fact is that the first amendment must include a license to offend, even if that means politician's heads will be placed on porn star's bodies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andre walker, earnest smith, first amendment, free speech, georgia, photoshop
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://hilariousphotoshops.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Rep-Earnes t-Smith-Gay-Wrestling-300x300.jpg
snark snark
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People expect...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PP Georgia opposes it
http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2013/02/the-absurd-unconstitutional-photo.html
We're currently mulling running a canddiate against him, and the bills sponsor Pam Dickerson, if we can find someone in the district to run (that's our big problem right now)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: PP Georgia opposes it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A rose by any other name ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People expect...
They've upped their game!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He is just pissed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1 word "Satire"
incoming satire of this lawmaker in 3...2...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thought it was strange...
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Earnest-Smith.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it is much harder when the content disgusts you.
At the same time, freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of that speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it is much harder when the content disgusts you.
At the same time, freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of that speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: PP Georgia opposes it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1 word "Satire"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes it is you simpering idiot.
The fact you can not wrap your small reptilian brain around this, and the fact your now foaming at the mouth over the mean things I just called you show that you are unfit for office.
Of all of the colossal wastes of time, your personal tantrum over someone making fun of you is costing your state time, money, effort as you attempt to pass a law that you KNOW violates the law of the land. You will then demand more resources be dumped into defending your idiocy.
Your a fucking thin skinned whiny baby who needs his diaper changed before they change who sits in your office dealing with the serious issues facing your state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
and GA does not have a lock on the crazy, look at Montana - lol
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/22/1628631/montana-bill-would-give-corporations-the- right-to-vote/?mobile=nc
There's all sorts of crazy being introduced at the state level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
American Nazi's what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right not to be offended
Everyone has an inherent and inalienable right not to give a shit about what anyone says :-/ I'd really like to see anyone trying to make me be offended.
So, now this misinformation is off the table, all that remains is teach people to actually exercise this basic human right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]