Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We get it - you're stuck in the 50's. Next point.....
I thought that my post was mostly about the 1960s while the liberals were taking over the Democrat Party. Hmmmm, I guess you didn't read about the DNC of 1968.
It is ok because most of us stop before we get to uncomfortable parts of anything. It is very true that I don't really like the language of today, though.
Sorry Roy, but freedom of speech and expression includes the rights of others to dole out offensive terms and gestures, as well as your freedom to be offended by it and my freedom to ignore it. What it doesn't do is give a cop (or anyone beyond the parent of a child) the right to punish the 'offender'. If no one ever said or did anything that another found offensive, there would be no need for protection of our right to freedom of expression in the Constitution, now, would there?
I won't bore you by throwing out a quote of the Constitution about Amendment 1 but there is no place in it that I see expression in the amendment. Yes, I know, that liberal inerpretations of it have led us to thinking as you say, here. However, I wrote a post about that pure crud who helped destroy private property and then was using that gesture and you could see the F word coming from his lips to be followed by "you pig". The worst part of that is that the cop had his billy raised and I imagine used it on that guy. I would have and I had a MS while many libs thought the Chicago cops weren't highly enough educated. I would think that they didn't pay those guys enough to have to take that kind of crap without making some expressions of their own.
You were old enough in 1968 to remember that kind of stuff and surely weren't so liberal then that you could stand it.
It's an expressive gesture and, as such, is considered speech for the purposes of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
It is thought that way by progressives who want it to be that way. Their words about the part about religion go much further than the Amendment does, also.
Sorry Roy, but freedom of speech and expression includes the rights of others to dole out offensive terms and gestures, as well as your freedom to be offended by it and my freedom to ignore it. What it doesn't do is give a cop (or anyone beyond the parent of a child) the right to punish the 'offender'. If no one ever said or did anything that another found offensive, there would be no need for protection of our right to freedom of expression in the Constitution, now, would there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I won't bore you by throwing out a quote of the Constitution about Amendment 1 but there is no place in it that I see expression in the amendment. Yes, I know, that liberal inerpretations of it have led us to thinking as you say, here. However, I wrote a post about that pure crud who helped destroy private property and then was using that gesture and you could see the F word coming from his lips to be followed by "you pig". The worst part of that is that the cop had his billy raised and I imagine used it on that guy. I would have and I had a MS while many libs thought the Chicago cops weren't highly enough educated. I would think that they didn't pay those guys enough to have to take that kind of crap without making some expressions of their own.
You were old enough in 1968 to remember that kind of stuff and surely weren't so liberal then that you could stand it.
How about you find for us something showing who it was that first said freedom of speech also means freedom of expression. And that that expression can be in the form of gestures, artwork, music, or the printed word, such as a book, play or even an editorial in the newspaper.
Yes, I was old enough in 1968 to remember and be disgusted by the actions of the police.
It's an expressive gesture and, as such, is considered speech for the purposes of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Like I said, nobody askes me about this stuff. I would never make this leap and intellectually I still can't despite what we have come to accept about "free speech" and the constitution. Free speech was pretty specific, expression is a load of BS. But that's how it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
