You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech.
No, I’m not. A political message can be as short as two words—“fuck Biden”—or the length of an essay. All that message needs to do is express a political opinion or stance. Is “fuck Biden” more or less political than “fuck the draft”?
This isn't about free speech.
Except it is.
This is about a free audience for drivel.
No one is obligated to look at the signs or do anything that would expose themselves to those signs. Whether the signs garner an audience is irrelevant; the speech remains protected no matter how many people see it.
An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.
So what? Some people believe their principles—and the law—are more important than money. In this case, an appeal would be the right thing to do regardless of the costs.
The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:
a. Appeals to the prurient interest;
b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and
c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
At no point does the law say the political message must be “compelling” to avoid being obscene. It says that the message must lack “political … value”. I would say that “fuck Biden”, offensive as it may be to some, absolutely has political value.
This ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of that, I have little doubt—especially in the wake of the “fuck cheer” case.
Neither example has to be “compelling”. “Fuck Biden” is a political statement. So is “fuck Trump”. Whether they come with reasons attached is irrelevant. I see no reason to censor such speech—regardless of why people say it.
And for disclosure purposes: I voted for Biden. Dissenting speech is legal, and I encourage dissent—even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Dissent against the government is political speech, and it can be expressed as simply as “fuck Biden”.
You’re not alone in the HTML/GeoCities experience.
NeoCities is a modern-day version of GeoCities, so that’s something for everyone to consider.
Control over personal online spaces was my point, tongue-in-cheek though it was; Twitter and Facebook can serve a useful purpose, but personal sites are a much better reflection of an individual than a Twitter feed will ever be.
Please name the people Jen Psaki censored for coronavirus information. Be absolutely specific in the details of who this happened to, when this happened, and what she said to make it happen.
I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line?
At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.
I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.
I still don't get how such a vast mass of benighted morons keep falling for stunts
By and large, conservatives are taught to hate facts, science, and those who teach them. (To wit: the Religious Right.) To such people, certain authorities can be trusted—so long as they’re conservative/hate the right people. But everyone else is a dangerous leftist radical or somesuch. It’s a big reason why many conservative opponents of Critical Race Theory can’t accurately explain what it is: They don’t need to know what it is (i.e., read about it from factually accurate sources), so long as the Trusted Voices “know” CRT is “evil”.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
No, I’m not. A political message can be as short as two words—“fuck Biden”—or the length of an essay. All that message needs to do is express a political opinion or stance. Is “fuck Biden” more or less political than “fuck the draft”?
Except it is.
No one is obligated to look at the signs or do anything that would expose themselves to those signs. Whether the signs garner an audience is irrelevant; the speech remains protected no matter how many people see it.
So what? Some people believe their principles—and the law—are more important than money. In this case, an appeal would be the right thing to do regardless of the costs.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
…fucking what
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
So what? It’s still political speech and it’s still protected speech. The judge was wrong to rule that it wasn’t.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
This is what the law in question says:
At no point does the law say the political message must be “compelling” to avoid being obscene. It says that the message must lack “political … value”. I would say that “fuck Biden”, offensive as it may be to some, absolutely has political value.
This ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of that, I have little doubt—especially in the wake of the “fuck cheer” case.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
That would be relevant if an HOA was involved in this case.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Neither example has to be “compelling”. “Fuck Biden” is a political statement. So is “fuck Trump”. Whether they come with reasons attached is irrelevant. I see no reason to censor such speech—regardless of why people say it.
And for disclosure purposes: I voted for Biden. Dissenting speech is legal, and I encourage dissent—even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Dissent against the government is political speech, and it can be expressed as simply as “fuck Biden”.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
Re: Re:
Three things:
You’re not alone in the HTML/GeoCities experience.
NeoCities is a modern-day version of GeoCities, so that’s something for everyone to consider.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
And their speech is still legal.
On the post: The Eternal October: Bringing Back Tech Optimism, Without The Naivety
The first step of the Eternal October is simple enough: Bring back personal websites to replace social media.
I therefore propose that we revive GeoCities.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
What makes “fuck Biden” any less political than “fuck Biden because he isn’t Trump”? Be specific in your reasoning.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Their speech is legal. How you feel about their speech—and about them—is irrelevant.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
It’d be a terrible argument, sure, but it could be made.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Flagged for malicious link.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
Please name the people Jen Psaki censored for coronavirus information. Be absolutely specific in the details of who this happened to, when this happened, and what she said to make it happen.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.
I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.
On the post: MAGA 'Freedom Phone' Targets Rubes With Dubious Promises Of Privacy
By and large, conservatives are taught to hate facts, science, and those who teach them. (To wit: the Religious Right.) To such people, certain authorities can be trusted—so long as they’re conservative/hate the right people. But everyone else is a dangerous leftist radical or somesuch. It’s a big reason why many conservative opponents of Critical Race Theory can’t accurately explain what it is: They don’t need to know what it is (i.e., read about it from factually accurate sources), so long as the Trusted Voices “know” CRT is “evil”.
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
What’s Chinese for “comrade”?
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
[citation needed, fellow undercover]
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
Every accusation, a confession…
On the post: No, The White House Isn't Colluding With Facebook To Silence Dissent; But It Sure Could Have Handled Things Better
If this is your best material, you should go back to writing for Carlos Mencia.
Next >>