U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2017, 05:14 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:59 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Miles Davis Drinking Beverage

Miles O'Brien

[Image: Milesobrien.jpg]

Quote:There was a joke that when Grace Slick had her daughter, she proclaimed she was going to name her god -- because she was so perfect. A nurse overheard it and reported it to San Francisco columnist Herb Caen, who wrote about it.

It was a joke, they named her China.

They should have named her Oyl.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
19-06-2017, 06:08 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:05 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 01:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Citation please -- in the United States.

There was the hubbub about the kid named Adolf Hitler and the bakery who refused to put the name on a cake. But I'm unaware of the courts approving baby names (I suppose if a parent disagrees that could be for the court to decide, but I dunno).

In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Low and behold, when she insisted they looked it up in the book of names and had to approve it.

Wow. Nobody in Germany had ever heard of Miles Davis? Shocking

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 06:17 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 06:08 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 03:05 PM)Dom Wrote:  In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Low and behold, when she insisted they looked it up in the book of names and had to approve it.

Wow. Nobody in Germany had ever heard of Miles Davis? Shocking

I know, right?!

Dunno what else to say.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-06-2017, 06:58 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Citation please -- in the United States.

There was the hubbub about the kid named Adolf Hitler and the bakery who refused to put the name on a cake. But I'm unaware of the courts approving baby names (I suppose if a parent disagrees that could be for the court to decide, but I dunno).

There is a few restriction that varies by State, a few States habe banned the use of obscenities or numerical digits or even diacritical marks. Some require names to be less than 26 letters long and can contain only english alphabetical letters and symbols. There is very little laws on naming convention in the US compared to other countries and many of those restrictions aren't enforced.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 07:15 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Which is why we had "The Performing Artist Formerly Known as Prince" to describe that glyph, at one time. He changed it later in life; he wasn't tagged with that at birth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2017, 05:20 AM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 05:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ...
Quote:There was a joke that when Grace Slick had her daughter, she proclaimed she was going to name her god -- because she was so perfect. A nurse overheard it and reported it to San Francisco columnist Herb Caen, who wrote about it.

It was a joke, they named her China.

They should have named her Oyl.

It occurs to me that "Arrh" would have been good too.

(might require a Brit accent for that).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
20-06-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Quote:The First Amendment does allow for free speech yes, but you cannot yell fire in a theater or use speech to advocate violence toward's others.


What Oliver Wendell Holmes said was that you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. If you yell "fire" in a theater that actually is on fire you may well be a hero, even though the end result of people being trampled to death is about the same.

In any case that decision was reversed and the law of the land is now set by Brandenburg v Ohio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenbur...velopments

Quote:Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[

Example: Some guy speaking to an armed mob and saying "let's go get 'em, boys," would be an example of speech which incited imminent lawless action.

Some old bastard in a wheelchair in a nursing home speaking to other old bastards in wheelchairs saying the exact same words would be unlikely to incite the same result.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
21-06-2017, 05:55 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
I'm also fully in favor of this decision. The government shouldn't be deciding what is and is not offensive to the community at large. That's not their function. I don't even think you need to get into a "free market" discussion on it. I think it's sufficient to say that the law in question here exceeded government authority and that's really it. Will the free market regulate racist trademarks and names? I have no idea. Maybe it will. It may not. I don't think that's really relevant, though. What is racist or offensive, is fleeting and changes from region to region, and time period to time period. It's a fleeting standard. If someone creates a trademark with the intention of it being racist, then I certainly hope that the market would respond negatively. But, that's for the public to decide. I loathe the idea of government playing "parent" and deciding these things for us. So, I applaud this return to sanity.

I'm confused by some of the comments here, though. Specifically those about protecting minorities. I don't see how this has any impacts on minorities at all. Someone using a racist name isn't an overt threat to anyone except perhaps their long term business interests.

Oh, one other thing - the etymology of the phrase "Redskins" may be benign but the team's adoption of that name most certainly was not. It absolutely was due to a popular perception about the ferocity of native americans - which was a myth built up to justify their wholesale slaughter. That is what the Redskins were going for when they picked that name and that is what native Americans object to. Let's not pretend the name was benign, because it was not. I'm ok with the government not being able to force a name change because of hurt feelings, but i'm perfectly ok with pressure being applied to the team to force a change.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
21-06-2017, 09:30 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 10:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 10:15 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  This is one area where I agree with the conservatives
...

The irony, of course, being that freedom of expression in its current form (post-Athens and Rome and shit) stems from both republicanism and liberalism...

Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
- the right to seek information and ideas;
- the right to receive information and ideas;
- the right to impart information and ideas

Quote:Milton's own beliefs were in some cases both unpopular and dangerous, and this was true particularly to his commitment to republicanism. In coming centuries, Milton would be claimed as an early apostle of liberalism.

I feel like I'm living in an Orwellian dystopia where The Republican™ party has become a non-hereditary monarchy (aka a tyranny) and The Conservatives™ extol classical liberal policies.

WTF?!?!?

Huh

We've had other posts on this, and I have lamented that the American left no longer embraces classical liberal ideas like free speech as they once did. It is good to see their justices vote the traditional left way on freedom of speech.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
22-06-2017, 07:11 AM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
The modern left, at least as represented on college campuses, are insane. They can't bear to hear any contrary point of view, much less engage in a debate about those issues. It's all or nothing with some of these kids.

I weep for the future.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: