Newton’s Law
Newton’s Law states that conservatives can make any kind of comical or serious threat against the state or fellow Americans that happen to be liberal and it is no big deal.
No Bag Limit – Tagging Not Required. May be used while under the influence of alcohol. May be used to Hunt Liberals at Gay Pride Parades, Democrat Conventions, Union Rallys, Handgun Control Meetings, News Media Association, Lesbian Luncheons, and Hollywood Functions. MAY HUNT DAY OR NIGHT WITH OR WITHOUT DOGS
ooooh i want one
Shorter jason: 1st amendment only applies to speech I like
Oh, awesome. Steve says I can yell Fire in a movie theater! I knew I liked you
Newton’s Delaware Liberal Exception: 1st Amendment defenses don’t matter when piling up on DD for an oblivious bit of really stupid hyperbole.
Seriously hypocritical.
I’ve often noticed the conservatives have a good sense of humor except when debating one of us. With us it’s always so serious.
I’ve often noticed the conservatives have a good sense of humor except when debating one of us. With us it’s always so serious.
Laughing would throw off their aim.
Terrible attempt at something not even funny, given the weak-resistance so many people have to even the dumbest suggestions these days.
To Steve’s point, though, defending the 1st Amendment means to also defend totally outrageous, horrible, vile things, in addition to those things you like. There is no cherry-picking those defenses. Want a clearer example? Look at the cases of the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment rights of the KKK and various white supremacist groups to gather, march, and speak. Can’t get much of a better example of wanting the 1st Amendment to NOT apply than that, but it does and even the ACLU acknowledges that.
The “FIRE” in a movie theater, though, DV, I do believe is not protected speech, unless of course, there is a fire.
On using what DD put out and the subsequent backlash, given I was the first to lay into him on it (and apparently, the only one to then forgive and move on), I never said he couldn’t say it. I simply told him in very colorful language what I thought about it and the carelessness of it. It, of course, spanned several comments and a post of my own, but he eventually agreed. We did a virtual hand shake and I’m still waiting for my lifetime supply of beer. Simple as that.
Steve is either ignorant of or willfully ignores the way far right-wing extremists have perfected the art of walking the fine line between implying a threat (protected by the 1st amendment) and actually making one (not protected by the 1st amendment).
Smitty’s last paragraph here is pretty much what Jason is pointing to — a certain carte blanche to the most outrageous of conservative speech that almost never seems to apply to liberals.
But Jason can tell me if I’m wrong about his point.
Remember when someone submitted an ad to MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler?
Remember when MoveOn.org put out a newspaper ad calling General Petraeus, General “Betray Us?”
I don’t remember any conservatives standing up for them. In fact, I’m pretty sure I remember Republicans forcing a bill through Congress to condemn MoveOn.org.
Free speech does not only apply to speech you agree with.
That’s pretty much it. Newton’s Law gives conservatives have a vast field in which to operate – while Democrats have to dance on the head of the fake libertarians postage stamp.
Oh, don’t get me wrong (and I opened my comment with this), I do think that bumper sticker, or whatever that POS is in that picture is pure vile shit. It’s wrong. It’s NOT humorous simply for the fact it opens the door for the loons. I hate to think we have to be thought-nanny’s in some regard, but read on…
It’s hard and disappointing to think that in 2009, you have to be so careful with your words that people may take you seriously (meaning the resistance to stupidity is on a serious wane), but the reality is, you do have to be careful.
I say, feel free to call out this shit as willfully as possible. I did against DD and he heard me. Of course, we are a tad bit more intimate via this blog, so that may be why it had more impact.
The only difference, though, from the episode with DD and this episode (at least from what I get from the post and comments), is that there isn’t a 1st Amendment issue at stake (meaning I didn’t see that it was used to say this should have been stifled). I certainly didn’t pull that card on DD. Is someone doing that here, or did Steve simply whip that out in a defense? If it’s being used against this “license,” it’s a no-win argument, just a debating point. I hate to say that, very much so, but it’s one of those undesirable parts of it. On the other hand, if that is Steve’s defense of your justified-thrashing of the “license,” then I say, while technically correct, Steve really could have picked a better point to make his example where it would have been better received and heard.
Uh, Stevo: Free speech also applies to speech that condemns other speech. I fail to see any call to censorship, merely an alert that yet another conservative/libertarian is engaging in yet more free, but irresponsible, speech.
Is someone doing that here, or did Steve simply whip that out in a defense?
This was Steve’s defense. Jason is not asking for the Hunting Permit thing to be banned or made illegal, he is pointing out how threatening speech is dealt with depending upon whether you are a liberal or a conservative.
Steve attempts to take the purist position on free speech, but then drops the ball on consistency. For some reason when we criticize and call out and call attention to the far right’s speech (our free speech right, btw) we are threatening their rights, but outrageous conservative speech is a-okay and doesn’t get called out on content.
Seems to me, Steve’s position against what we say would be taken more seriously if his criticism cut both ways.
No one here has advocated limiting speech. We are addressing the content of that speech. Just seems like the far right is entitled to, not only 1st Amendment protection, but protection from criticism of the content of their words. While we’re labeled as a threat to 1A and boundless criticism of content. Therein lies the inconsistency.
You know… you can be for free speech and still openly disagree with what was said. That’s… um… free speech.
A-woman pandora.
The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want.
The 1st amendment allows me to criticize what you say.
There is no amendment that protects one from the content of one’s speech. I think we at DL are consistent in believing calling for violence against people, especially a large group of people, is irresponsible and dangerous.
What’s the big deal?
All they did was replace the word Negro with Liberal, and change some of the hate criteria.
Though in an altercation, I reserve the right to pistol-whip you to an inch of your life if I see that anywhere on your F250 or person.
It’s called Self Defense and I cannot take any chances even if you’re “Just Kidding”….capiche?
A-woman? Not sure what this means, UI. Help! 🙂
It’s a variation of Amen. a. price used aMEN in my “Feminist-approved insults” thread so I’m now using A-woman.
Gotcha. I’m being a little dizzy today (nothing’s changed, we see). I agree. There does seem to be a double-standard from the right, which annoys me to no end, which is effectively, “Do not speak, especially do NOT criticize, unless spoken to and then asked to respond, but do be silent particularly when we are bitching about you.”
Partisan bitching is indeed that: bitching. It’s also very shitty to be on the receiving end of it, even if not being made directly at you. However, oh well. What pisses me off most at the end of the day isn’t what democrat-A said about republican-B, no matter the partisan-level of bitterness was involved. What bothers me is if that happened after democrat-A went on a previous tear about how that type of stuff should be left unsaid. This can be taken straight from how many Republicans cried and screamed about the insults lobbed at GWB, but in turn, they seem to have no issue with doing the same to BHO. Please. Hypocrites. That’s what I have a problem with, the convenient, short-term memory.
That’s what I have a problem with, the convenient, short-term memory.
Me too. From everybody.
I don’t much mind partisanship as long as everyone gets serious about the big problems, but I do mind the double standards. Especially when it comes to sheltering folks from your own side calling for the equivalent of jihad.
RSmitty,
I forgot – are you a republican?
@ A1: 😆 it’s as secretive as your identity
@ cass: I hear ya’! That’s why, when I run defense, it’s happened on only a few, select things, but with an attempt of justification as well. There are indeed arguments that I just can’t stand to look at and I won’t step in at all. Y’all seem to go well enough stomping on them without me needing to pile on. 😀
Well, since the liberal hunting license is clearly just a joke ya know, and we liberals shouldn’t be sooo sensitive. ….
Conservative Hunting License
No Bleeding Heart Required. May be used while under the influence of any recreational substance. May be used to Hunt Conservatives at Loyalty Day, Memorial Day, Armed Forces Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day Parades, Republican Conventions, Mega Churches, Tea Bag Rallys, Corporate Board Meetings, Fox News, Country Club Luncheons, and Right-Wing Think Tanks. MAY HUNT DAY OR NIGHT WITH OR WITHOUT REMORSE.
As corrected below. Your verson buys into the Republican meme that only conservatives serve in the armed forces.
Come on, man — I’d have to put down my latte to hunt anything, so that’s definitely not on.
And I’m a squeamish liberal who doesn’t own a gun. And while there are liberal hunters, that sign don’t hunt.
Remember, this is the kind of thing hunters guffaw about just before going out and shooting their friends in the face.
Can I hunt with my Volvo?
@ delacrat, good appropriate response.
@ Von c.,
I’ll put the sign on my F150.
Right next to “Evil thrives when good people do nothing”.
Do I sense your inclination to agree with the philosophy of preemptive strikes? You agree with Cheney? Israel?
Was that pistol whip, or buggy whip?
🙂
xyz,
I was planning on sending them a sternly worded letter.
Wasn’t that quote in Schindler’s List?
Ah yes…a quote credited to Edmund Burke, though it hasn’t been proven if he ever said it.
And it has to be at least a F250….you know, ’cause true nutty conservatives buy way too much truck than they actually need…and don’t forget about the truck nuts! 😉
If either of those ‘permits’ are meant to be funny…they ain’t. Shoot they are hardly mildy amusing…..:-(