Obscenity Laws Ruled Unconstitutional

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ+Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NineInchCock_160IQ &#064; Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jan 24 2005, 04:24 PM
Wow, that&#39;s amazing in our current political climate. Lets&#39; see how it holds up through the appeals, but even a small victory can be an important one.

[post=277011]Quoted post[/post]​

What do you mean by that Zora? Republicans control everything right now and it is conservatives who are the traditional defenders of free speech.

[post=278733]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

There have always been free-speech advocates in both parties. They usually aren&#39;t the party leaders, however. While conservatives rail about obscenity, it&#39;s liberals who often go off the deep end when it comes to claiming "hate speech." It&#39;s really about whichever party has more to gain by claiming to "protect" Americans from "bad" stuff.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by aloofman+Jan 31 2005, 12:19 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman &#064; Jan 31 2005, 12:19 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ@Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora

@Jan 24 2005, 04:24 PM
Wow, that&#39;s amazing in our current political climate. Lets&#39; see how it holds up through the appeals, but even a small victory can be an important one.

[post=277011]Quoted post[/post]​

What do you mean by that Zora? Republicans control everything right now and it is conservatives who are the traditional defenders of free speech.

[post=278733]Quoted post[/post]​

There have always been free-speech advocates in both parties. They usually aren&#39;t the party leaders, however. While conservatives rail about obscenity, it&#39;s liberals who often go off the deep end when it comes to claiming "hate speech." It&#39;s really about whichever party has more to gain by claiming to "protect" Americans from "bad" stuff.

[post=278914]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Well, the difference is (to me) that hate groups have a long rich history of doing real physical damage to the persons whom they hate, ie., turning their rhetoric into reality. If there were a proven correlation between people who view porn and people who commit rape, I&#39;d be against it too. These issues are not the same.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jan 31 2005, 06:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jan 31 2005, 06:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by aloofman@Jan 31 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ@Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora

@Jan 24 2005, 04:24 PM
Wow, that&#39;s amazing in our current political climate. Lets&#39; see how it holds up through the appeals, but even a small victory can be an important one.

[post=277011]Quoted post[/post]​

What do you mean by that Zora? Republicans control everything right now and it is conservatives who are the traditional defenders of free speech.

[post=278733]Quoted post[/post]​

[post=278914]Quoted post[/post]​

[post=279093]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
In the 1950&#39;s the Republicans under Josseph McCarthy slandered many a person as being "communist" until the general public grew tired of it and finaly Joseph McCarhty was censored by the Senate for his actions. During Clinton the Republicans held an innocent women in shackles because she was told what to testify and it didnt&#39; matter what the real truth was. After spending millions of taxpayers money, no major figure in the Clinton Administration was ever convicted of anything much to the chagrin of the leadership of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has a long history of using the "conservative" label to reduce free speech. This has been particularly true since 1928 when during the Hoover Administration, the army put down what that called a "rebellion" by veterans of World War I meeting in Washington D. C. The veterans were asking for their checks for serving in World War I and the Hoover Adminstration reponded by sending in an army to arrest and pillage the camp ground where the veterans were meeting. Don&#39;t find this in most Amerian textbooks. It was a moment of shame in our history.

No, I wouldn&#39;t call the Republican Party the defenders of free speech. That is unless you agree with their philosophy and you make over &#036;200,000 a year. Other wise the Republicans don&#39;t care about you unless they can fool you into voting for them.

 

[jonb]

Hell, I wouldn&#39;t even call them conservative. The modern Republican Party&#39;s controlled by perpetual-motion neoliberals and fundamentalist nutcases, neither of which were considered "conservative" until the Reagan era. Once again, I recommend It&#39;s my Party, Too by Christine Todd Whitman.

 

[MisterMark]

Originally posted by jonb@Feb 1 2005, 03:42 PM
Hell, I wouldn&#39;t even call them conservative. The modern Republican Party&#39;s controlled by perpetual-motion neoliberals and fundamentalist nutcases, neither of which were considered "conservative" until the Reagan era. Once again, I recommend It&#39;s my Party, Too by Christine Todd Whitman.

[post=279394]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m glad she wrote that book, but I would have admired her more if she had released it BEFORE the election in November. She also campaigned for Bush. In a way, I think it makes her look cowardly to release that book now.

 

[jonb]

True, but eventually, the moderates will wake up and realize that right now, sad to say, the Democrats are the conservative party.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jan 31 2005, 04:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jan 31 2005, 04:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by aloofman@Jan 31 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ@Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora

@Jan 24 2005, 04:24 PM
Wow, that&#39;s amazing in our current political climate. Lets&#39; see how it holds up through the appeals, but even a small victory can be an important one.

[post=277011]Quoted post[/post]​

What do you mean by that Zora? Republicans control everything right now and it is conservatives who are the traditional defenders of free speech.

[post=278733]Quoted post[/post]​

There have always been free-speech advocates in both parties. They usually aren&#39;t the party leaders, however. While conservatives rail about obscenity, it&#39;s liberals who often go off the deep end when it comes to claiming "hate speech." It&#39;s really about whichever party has more to gain by claiming to "protect" Americans from "bad" stuff.

[post=278914]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, the difference is (to me) that hate groups have a long rich history of doing real physical damage to the persons whom they hate, ie., turning their rhetoric into reality. If there were a proven correlation between people who view porn and people who commit rape, I&#39;d be against it too. These issues are not the same.

[post=279093]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


By "hate speech," I didn&#39;t mean actual hate speech. I meant feminists who want to ban porn, ethnic group activists who think there&#39;s a racist angle to every issue, etc. Most of them consider themselves left-of-center, but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re free speech advocates.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by aloofman+Feb 2 2005, 08:02 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aloofman &#064; Feb 2 2005, 08:02 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jan 31 2005, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by aloofman@Jan 31 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by NineInchCock_160IQ@Jan 29 2005, 10:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora

@Jan 24 2005, 04:24 PM
Wow, that&#39;s amazing in our current political climate. Lets&#39; see how it holds up through the appeals, but even a small victory can be an important one.

[post=277011]Quoted post[/post]​

What do you mean by that Zora? Republicans control everything right now and it is conservatives who are the traditional defenders of free speech.

[post=278733]Quoted post[/post]​

There have always been free-speech advocates in both parties. They usually aren&#39;t the party leaders, however. While conservatives rail about obscenity, it&#39;s liberals who often go off the deep end when it comes to claiming "hate speech." It&#39;s really about whichever party has more to gain by claiming to "protect" Americans from "bad" stuff.

[post=278914]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, the difference is (to me) that hate groups have a long rich history of doing real physical damage to the persons whom they hate, ie., turning their rhetoric into reality. If there were a proven correlation between people who view porn and people who commit rape, I&#39;d be against it too. These issues are not the same.

[post=279093]Quoted post[/post]​

By "hate speech," I didn&#39;t mean actual hate speech. I meant feminists who want to ban porn, ethnic group activists who think there&#39;s a racist angle to every issue, etc. Most of them consider themselves left-of-center, but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re free speech advocates.

[post=279497]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Oh sure, most people just want their own voice heard, their own point gotten across. In order to advocate free speech, you have to defend the rights of those who oppose you as well. I am simply not convinced that this is a party issue. Personally, I only oppose free speech when it suggests or encourages violating the safety and rights of others. Violating the safety and rights of others is the bush admin&#39;s job.

 

[jonb]

a.k.a. the Free Speach complex. (On news.admin.net-abuse.email, a spammer claimed a right to "free speach". Since then, the nonexistent "right" to drown out everyone else is called Free Speach.) Examples of Free Speach include spam, soft money, and the media&#39;s annoying tendency to only highlight opinions held by an extreme minority. (Think Florida. A lot more was going on besides confusing ballots, but that was all you heard about.)