Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 Apr '13 23:59
    This idiot is crying about his right to say this filth under America's 1st Amendment right to free speech, claiming he can say anything he wants when it pops into his head.

    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/204795111.html

    What disgusts me is the University Of Arizona adminisration said "oh that's fine in America anyone can say antything"...
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Apr '13 00:19 / 4 edits
    I didn't look at the link, but you should be able to say anything that doesn't harm or slander someone, or is a lie under oath in a legal setting.

    You have to realize that what's considered "filth" is subjective. If I said women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to back in the 50's, I possibly would've received the same derision you're giving to the person who made the rape comment. Yet, today, this issue has been taken to court, as a matter of fairness (women being topless anywhere men are allowed to be topless) and is even legal in some cities, like Rochester or Boston.

    In fact, saying that masturbation was a healthy and normal thing, at one time in U.S. history, would've definitely been considered filth. The same with saying "there's no god" or the "I think the Christian god is evil". This is nothing now, and a lot of people, especially over the internet, share such opinions freely; however, at one time, this all would've been "filth".
  3. 27 Apr '13 00:42
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This idiot is crying about his right to say this filth under America's 1st Amendment right to free speech, claiming he can say anything he wants when it pops into his head.

    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/204795111.html

    What disgusts me is the University Of Arizona adminisration said "oh that's fine in America anyone can say antything"...
    He says, ""I feel some girls are partially responsible if you dress like or if you provoke it,"*

    Then he is partially responsible if he provokes a violent reaction to his words.

    *That's the quote, it's flawed.
  4. 27 Apr '13 00:54
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This idiot is crying about his right to say this filth under America's 1st Amendment right to free speech, claiming he can say anything he wants when it pops into his head.

    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/204795111.html

    What disgusts me is the University Of Arizona adminisration said "oh that's fine in America anyone can say antything"...
    How about just ignoring the guy?
  5. 27 Apr '13 00:58
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This idiot is crying about his right to say this filth under America's 1st Amendment right to free speech, claiming he can say anything he wants when it pops into his head.

    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/204795111.html

    What disgusts me is the University Of Arizona adminisration said "oh that's fine in America anyone can say antything"...
    There is no need to protect popular speech.

    Nobody has to listen. He gets exactly what he wants when people start reacting.
  6. 27 Apr '13 02:51 / 1 edit
    As I expected, people here just don't get it and gave a typical libtard knee-jerk response saying yeah-durhh-it's -his-right under the constitution and my retarded view of freedom.
    Here's a legal description of why the kid should have been stopped by the university administration .

    http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

    1st Amendment doesn't mean you can just say anything you want
  7. 27 Apr '13 04:03
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    As I expected, people here just don't get it and gave a typical libtard knee-jerk response saying yeah-durhh-it's -his-right under the constitution and my retarded view of freedom.
    Here's a legal description of why the kid should have been stopped by the university administration .

    http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforf ...[text shortened]... L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

    1st Amendment doesn't mean you can just say anything you want
    Which rule applies to this case?
  8. 27 Apr '13 05:08
    Originally posted by normbenign
    There is no need to protect popular speech.

    Nobody has to listen. He gets exactly what he wants when people start reacting.
    Right. And according to his own theory, his provocative behavior amounts to contributory negligence (which he wants to apply to all those mini-skirted sorority sisters).
  9. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    27 Apr '13 07:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    This idiot is crying about his right to say this filth under America's 1st Amendment right to free speech, claiming he can say anything he wants when it pops into his head.

    http://www.kgun9.com/news/local/204795111.html

    What disgusts me is the University Of Arizona adminisration said "oh that's fine in America anyone can say antything"...
    I believe the statements this man made were incorrect and highly inappropriate. I'm not sure however who you are referring to when you say "University of Arizona administration" Do you mean the President? The University as a whole, or their governing body? Nevertheless, I wouldn't get too worked up over what one guy says, considering he does not represent the view of the majority.
  10. 27 Apr '13 12:57
    Originally posted by vivify
    I didn't look at the link, but you should be able to say anything that doesn't harm or slander someone, or is a lie under oath in a legal setting.

    You have to realize that what's considered "filth" is subjective. If I said women should be allowed to walk around topless if they want to back in the 50's, I possibly would've received the same derision you're ...[text shortened]... are such opinions freely; however, at one time, this all would've been "filth".
    I would add that it is better to let individuals voice such views in the open where others can refute them. In the example of women causing or inviting rape due to the way they dress, could the argument then not be made that driving a fancy car or wearing an expensive watch or jewlery or owning a home filled with valuables invites/causes theft and the theif could simply claim he/she was just overcome with uncontrollable greed at the sight of such riches?

    During the 1970's the Civil Liberties Union came under sharp fire for protecting the Nazi Party's right to march through Skokie, Il, a predominently Jewish community. You either support free speech or you do not. Falsly crying "fire" in a theater is not protected. Slander is not protected. Obsceneties are not protected which I question. Shouting "fighting" words in someone's face is not protected. You cannot make public top secret information to which, legally, only the government, your place of work, or your neighbor shoud be privey.

    The problem I often find with many conservatives in the U.S. is they frequently seem to prefer a dictatorship to a democracy as long as they get to dictate.
  11. 27 Apr '13 19:30
    So tomorrow I'm going to stand on a corner and call every woman that passes by a whore and a slut, REGARDLESS OF AGE, and that's my right.
    Right?
    You people are retarded.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Apr '13 19:53 / 1 edit
    If you really believed in what you were saying, you wouldn't be calling people "retarded" and being verbally abusive. That just makes you a hypocrite.
  13. 27 Apr '13 20:41
    Originally posted by vivify
    If you really believed in what you were saying, you wouldn't be calling people "retarded" and being verbally abusive. That just makes you a hypocrite.
  14. 27 Apr '13 20:41
    XD
  15. 27 Apr '13 20:44
    Originally posted by vivify
    If you really believed in what you were saying, you wouldn't be calling people "retarded" and being verbally abusive. That just makes you a hypocrite.
    quality.