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.

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."
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:
"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.
Hide this

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


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:59pm

    To be fair, I'm sure porn stars don't like their faces covered up by a Congressman's face either.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:05pm

    wat

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:08pm

    Does he realise that he is proposing a double edged sword, he could prevent himself being nasty about his opponent in a future contest, and lose the election.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Thomas (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:12pm

    People expect...

    a member of the Georgia legislature to understand the Constitution? Or even cares for that matter... Many politicians, especially the less honest ones, get satirized regularly. Maybe he can try his luck in court or getting the legislature to pass a law making insults a crime.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:51pm

      Re: People expect...

      If I remember correctly, a few years ago, Georgia politicians decided Guam was going to capsize.

      They've upped their game!

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Andrew Norton (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:13pm

    PP Georgia opposes it

    We of the Georgia Pirate Party have been quite vocal about it too

    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 chronology ]

    • identicon
      Another AC, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:23pm

      Re: PP Georgia opposes it

      lol you have to pick a different name than 'PP Georgia' :)

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Togashi (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:49pm

        Re: Re: PP Georgia opposes it

        I would call them the GAPP, because then I could tell people to mind them.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:19pm

    Or, instead of passing that law he can photoshop the person who made the image, to make them look like they're in jail.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    radarmonkey (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:23pm

    A rose by any other name ....

    Outlaw Photoshop? Use GIMP!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:43pm

    He thought it was bad before trying to make this law, it's going to get really ugly now :D

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:54pm

    He is just pissed...

    because he fessed up to his wife before he found out it wasn't really a picture of him with his mistress.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    mhab, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:55pm

    1 word "Satire"

    This lawmaker needs to go back to his highschool government class and check over the constitution section VERY carefully... he will shortly find that there is an explicit provision in the constitution which allows for "Satire". This makes it legal to poke fun of people and particularly politicians and government officials...


    incoming satire of this lawmaker in 3...2...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TheLastCzarnian (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:30pm

      Re: 1 word "Satire"

      There are massive books of political cartoons which specifically make fun of politicians. This senator's level of cluelessness is truly epic.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:16pm

    I thought it was strange...

    that you didn't include the image. So for those who were also wondering here's a link...

    http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Earnest-Smith.jpg

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:31pm

    It is easy to agree with free speech, when the content it is something you agree with.

    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 chronology ]

    • icon
      Togashi (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:52pm

      Re:

      Well, it's not freedom from most repercussions of that speech. It is freedom from some governmental repercussions, though.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:31pm

    It is easy to agree with free speech, when the content it is something you agree with.

    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 chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:55pm

    This is a meme waiting to happen.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:41pm

    ""No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right.""

    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 chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:09pm

      Re:

      You do know he's unlikely to come here to read your open letter to him?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:08pm

        Re: Re:

        He is running around looking for photoshopped pictures of himself online. He appears to not be tech savvy, I'm sure there is a decent chance of him ending up here.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:22pm

    Only corporations have rights.
    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 chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:18pm

      Re:

      Corporations the right to vote? Don't they already have that? Last I heard, it was called "lobbying".

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 5:11am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, it is well known that corporations "vote" with their "contributions" and it is now considered to be their right to free speech. This would be just another step in the general direction towards crazy town.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      BentFranklin (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:32pm

      Re:

      Wouldn't having to vote would be a step backwards for corporations?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Some Guy, 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:14am

    We do not protect the rights of American Nazi's


    American Nazi's what?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:54am

    he wants 'outlawing' himself, friggin' moron!!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    relghuar, 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:25pm

    Right not to be offended

    Please! Of course there is a 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 chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.