DescentBB

Linky

That free speach is a mofo sometimes



*edit x2* Thanks Dedman!!

Pearcy said he will hang another solider from his roof in the coming days and that if police catch the man who vandalized his home he will press charges.

I hope he does press charges.

Well, if it's free speech to put out something like that, isn't it free speech to say "that stinks" in your own way too?

On a side note, that idjit is just begging for a lawsuit--I hope the family of one of the killed soldiers in Iraq sues the pants off this guy.

Sue under what grounds? As much as a douche as this guy is, what he did is a form of free speech. And believe me, the last thing this country needs is more lawsuits.

He has the freedom to speak, and nobody has the right to steal his property, no matter how tasteless it is.

However, we *do* have the freedom to ridicule him.

Free speech is good and all--but what about said free speech causing "pain and suffering" to another?

I figure, if people have sued because they spilled coffee on themselves, they should be able to sue when a totally insensitive clod like this hangs an effigy of a US soldier from his house. I mean sure, you have the right to express yourself and all that--but do I have the right to go to his house and smack him a good one to express my distaste of him? No? I'm only causing physical pain, this idjit is causing emotional pain to the loved ones of those killed in war. There are better ways of expressing your views.

On a side note, yes, all these lawsuits are getting out of hand. For instance, that guy that's selling himself on e-bay as a "human punching bag" will probably sue e-bay for billions if anyone actually buys his "service".

Blatantly stolen (Lothar knows where ) but freedom of speech should be protected if for no other reason than it makes it much easier to spot the idiots.

bash wrote:Blatantly stolen (Lothar knows where ) but freedom of speech should be protected if for no other reason than it makes it much easier to spot the idiots.

yup yup... let em' say it (no "fightin' words").
whoever they are.

Couver_ wrote:That free speach is a mofo sometimes

Freedom of speech is a restraint on government. It has no bearing on the citizenry. So I think it's just fine for his neighbors and passerby's to mount counter-protests.

The eisiest way to solve this problem is to get a can of gasoline and some matches and burn that idiot's house down. If he can afford to hang a soldier's uniform on a noose, then he can afford to buy a new house.

KlubMarcus wrote:

Couver_ wrote:That free speach is a mofo sometimes

Freedom of speech is a restraint on government. It has no bearing on the citizenry. So I think it's just fine for his neighbors and passerby's to mount counter-protests.

The eisiest way to solve this problem is to get a can of gasoline and some matches and burn that idiot's house down. If he can afford to hang a soldier's uniform on a noose, then he can afford to buy a new house.

uh huh...
internet ★■◆● suggesting pure violence towards someone who is making a (however misguided) protest on his own land... which would completely defeat the purpose of FREEDOM to express ones self, which is one of the reasons to be proud to be an american.

i've been a total ★■◆● up on this forum many times and don't expect to be taken seriously. but you are the kind of clown that should be outright banned... if only to save the children from being influenced by your fascist cut and paste dribble.

die in hell (you prolly believe in hell)

-edit: even cut and paste cowards should be able to paste their dribble... i'm a hypocrite.

Nope, freedom of speech is NEVER a mofo. I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves, while 50% of american kids believe newspapers should have to ask permission to publish stories unfavourable to the administration.

I swear, America is changing, and it aint for the better.

Mobius wrote:Nope, freedom of speech is NEVER a mofo. I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves, while 50% of american kids believe newspapers should have to ask permission to publish stories unfavourable to the administration.

I swear, America is changing, and it aint for the better.

I'll say it now to all of you.. don't bother posting a single image in response to his post. It's stupid, immature and its an old joke.

Sigh.

maybe robo.

if these depend wearing hacks can put up with some internet front nazi.... surely they can put up with mobius who delivers an 'individuals' outsider perspective.

this bb is fun when i'm hung over and have full knowledge of licking a girl at a cover band gig. eat it.

KM is right that freedom of speech is a limitation on the government, not on individuals. So freedom of speech only says the government can't shut this guy up (provided his display meets public decency laws, meaning it's not porn, and provided it isn't being used to incite a riot.) It says nothing about individuals.

But, this guy does have the right to property, and there are laws protecting him from having individuals steal his display, no matter what it says. As long as it's his stuff on his property, he can have a display that says anything he wants it to say. It can be pro-war, anti-war, pro-religion, anti-religion, or whatever else he wants to say. Nobody has the right to tear it down.

But we do have the right to ridicule him.

Mobi: that's an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? What was the exact wording of the question?

Lothar, it was a poll of one small group of highschool kids but, true to form, Mo'BS is making generalizations he shouldn't be making. IIRC, the BBC recently played it up far beyond it's significance.

Mobius wrote: I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves, while 50% of american kids believe newspapers should have to ask permission to publish stories unfavourable to the administration.

Actually The question should be reworded to "Liberal wank journalists should get permission to publish/say anything". Case in point:

"NEW YORK (AP) - CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan quit Friday amid a furor over remarks he made in Switzerland last month about journalists killed by the U.S. military in Iraq. Jordan said he was quitting to avoid CNN being "unfairly tarnished" by the controversy."

"During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum last month, Jordan said he believed that several journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted."

I'd bring up Dan Rather but we already roasted his heiny.

Yeah, freedom can be difficult to live with, but it's better than the alternative. Geez, didn't we have enough examples of fascist or communist totalitarian regimes in the 20th century that folks could use as a reference point for people who have lived without free speech (among other freedoms).

Burn his house down ? Not even mildly humorous.

his house would still stand.

if i was an adnitted righty i would be slamming this ★■◆●. ★■◆●ing die. it's got to be some coward on the dbb that has no balls. how shocking. here's my address...

Nice avatar Cops...I always knew you were a pencil neck geek

Couver_ wrote:uh huh... internet **** suggesting pure violence towards someone who is making a (however misguided) protest on his own land... which would completely defeat the purpose of FREEDOM to express ones self, which is one of the reasons to be proud to be an american.

The man who hangs an effigy of a soldier is a traitor. The soldier keeps you free by putting his life on the line. The man who taunts your tax dollars is simply insulting the soldier's sacrifice while living his cushy life on the home front. He's twisting YOUR freedom in order to rub his idiotic political views in your face. But you're such a "loyal little puppy dog" that you defend him anyway. What's wrong? Liberalism made you lose your courage to do what's right? The guy who tore the effigy down had the right idea. And he didn't need government to do the right thing, he just did it himself.

die in hell (you prolly believe in hell)

You have to die to get to hell. So your weak comeback doesn't even make sense. Try harder next time. You can do it.

KlubMarcus wrote:The man who hangs an effigy of a soldier is a traitor.

How so? IIRC Traitor means "someone who betrays his country by committing treason."

How has this guys done that? It seems to me that he is protesting what he sees as the current administrations throwing away soldiers lives. I don't see that he was protesting the soldiers themselves.

I understand you don't like the way he packages his message, but please tone down the rhetoric if you want to taken seriously.

Dedman, it's a grey area but there's something about giving *aid and comfort* to the enemy during wartime which can get one into hot water. Obviously that's up to a court to determine if hanging US servicepersons in effigy fulfills that definition. Either way, I think we're dealing with someone still bitterly resentful of the Bush re-election (no small number of those folks around ) who chose to express it inappropriately (and doubtless he's trashed any hope of having good relations with his neighbors). Coming up with a display that appears to callously represent an executed US soldier is in poor taste considering there are grieving families who would find that depiction particularly personal and hurtful.

Dedman: you're giving him too much credit by even responding to what he says.

Mobius wrote:Nope, freedom of speech is NEVER a mofo. I can hear your founding fathers spinning in their graves, while 50% of american kids believe newspapers should have to ask permission to publish stories unfavourable to the administration.

I swear, America is changing, and it aint for the better.

<----- Thats why I posted that.

I disagree with that guys message he is a clown. Yet its his message so he should be able to do something to get it out. I am all about freedom of speach even when idiots like that have a say. What he did was way disrespectfull and overboard. I support his neighbors right to protest right back at him.

Best way to counter him? Just put up a sign on your lawn that says, "My neighbor is a giant douche."

Top Gun wrote:Best way to counter him? Just put up a sign on your lawn that says, "My neighbor is a giant douche."

I like it.

KlubMarcus wrote:He's twisting YOUR freedom in order to rub his idiotic political views in your face.

Oh no! A guy is publicly displaying his idiocy! We can't allow that!

He has the freedom to be an idiot. So do you. As bash said, freedom of speech just makes it easier to spot the idiots. We also have the freedom to ridicule him, as Top Gun suggested. We also have the freedom to ridicule you, thusly:

Top Gun, Lothar,

X2 (hell, x-squared)

Dedman wrote: How has this guys done that? It seems to me that he is protesting what he sees as the current administrations throwing away soldiers lives. I don't see that he was protesting the soldiers themselves.

He's hanging a SOLDIER's effigy, connect the dots. You'd think he'd hang an effigy of Clinton because Clinton said...

"if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." ....

I understand you don't like the way he packages his message, but please tone down the rhetoric if you want to taken seriously.

You're telling me to tone down my rhetoric while you defend a man who hangs an effigy of a soldier who keeps you free while insulting the taxes that we all pay? Yeah, you're serious all right, seriously idiotic!

Two can play at that game, hey you're looking good!

KlubMarcus the Bandwidth Thief wrote:
I married a giant douche.

dissent wrote:Top Gun, Lothar, X2 (hell, x-squared)

Then let me thank you ahead of time with the Lothar wedding pic comeback.

Hey KlubMarcus... don't you know you're not supposed to link images from other people's servers? I pay for my webspace, which means I don't want you or anybody else putting my images in your posts. Save it to your own webspace next time. Don't let me catch you again.

Lothar wrote:Hey KlubMarcus... don't you know you're not supposed to link images from other people's servers? I pay for my webspace, which means I don't want you or anybody else putting my images in your posts. Save it to your own webspace next time. Don't let me catch you again.

That edited smiley that you posted first is linked from your own webspace buddy boy. You should've thought about that before leaving yourself open to such an easy comeback, eh?

Next time you'll know better than to use a feeble insult. You're threatening me? What are you going to do, complain to your ISP, my ISP? I didn't whine when you shot an insult in my direction so don't let me see you cry when I shoot one back.

What are you going to do? Huh? Suspend my Login because "mean 'ole KlubMarcus" is hurting your feelings? Waaaaa..... Waaaaaa..... Don't let me catch you again.

KlubMarcus wrote:That edited smiley that you posted first is linked from your own webspace buddy boy.

Yep. It's my webspace. That means I can link to it as often as I want. I pay the bills. If you pay the bills for your own webspace, you can put whatever images you want on it. You can even copy images from my webspace and save them on yours, if you want. But using images from my webspace is theft.

To bring this back to the topic at hand: the guy who posted the effigy may be a douche, but he has the right to post it on his own property. People also have the right to insult him as long as they do it on their own property. And you have the right to insult me, as long as you use your own webspace to do it, and post it in the appropriate thread (according to Sickone's rules -- since Sickone pays the bills for the DBB.)

The beautiful thing about America is that you have the right to act like a total idiot, as long as you do it with your own property. The guy with the hanging soldier is doing it on his own property, so he has every right to do it, and nobody has any right to steal his stuff (though they do have every right to ridicule him.) You have every right to create insulting pictures of me and put them on your own webspace, and link to them wherever you want -- as long as it's your own property. And I have every right to ridicule you in return, as long as I use my own webspace to do it. And, since Sickone owns the DBB, he has the right to tell us to knock it off and to ban whoever he wants to.

It's a simple concept -- you have freedom of speech, as long as you're using your own property.

Can I flame the crap out of him now Lothar?

on second thought, i'm just gonna do it anyway.

Lothar wrote: Yep. It's my webspace. That means I can link to it as often as I want. I pay the bills.

Hmmm, let me explain this again in order for you to understand. You posted an insult against me from YOUR webspace, so it was a simple matter to use YOUR OWN wedding pic in YOUR webspace against you as a counter-insult. Get it? Good boy, you're so smart. Since you got trounced so eisily, you have to resort to whining about the all the bandwidth that one pic will use up. Please, at least TRY not to look dumb and don't forget to update your billing info so that your ISP can bill you for all that excess bandwidth. Gee, isn't that precious, you substituted a pooping elephant for your wedding pic? Freudian slip?

To bring this back to the topic at hand: the guy who posted the effigy may be a douche, but he has the right to post it on his own property. People also have the right to insult him as long as they do it on their own property. And you have the right to insult me, as long as you use your own webspace to do it, and post it in the appropriate thread (according to Sickone's rules -- since Sickone pays the bills for the DBB.)

So you're equating anti-US soldier and anti-American action by someone you describe as a douche to your own situation? Now that's what I call connecting the dots! Someone should page SickOne, he's gotta read that one.

It's a simple concept -- you have freedom of speech, as long as you're using your own property.

Wrong! You can yell "FIRE!" from your own property and your own megaphone, but if the panic causes damage and injury to others then your "freedom of speech" won't stand. Freedom of speech is a simple concept, it's a limitation on government action against the citizen. I'm not sure why you're bringing property into it because it isn't helping your cause.

When fellow citizens decide to act against an anti-American douchebag, it's OK because it's not the government violating "freedom of speech". It seems like members of society are acting as individuals against the anti-American douchebag. It's kinda like a robber getting shot while holding up the bank by a customer and nobody rushes to call an ambulance. Meanwhile, the ambulance driver takes his sweet time getting to the scene because only the criminal got hurt.

So if a good citizen burns the douchebag's house down, I predict that "nobody saw anything" and "the firefighters got there in time to save the neighborhood but not the Liberal's house".

KlubMarcus wrote:let me explain this again... You posted an insult against me from YOUR webspace, so it was a simple matter to use YOUR OWN wedding pic in YOUR webspace

Which is theft, no matter how small it might be. It's a matter of principle -- don't steal people's bandwidth. Ask permission, or use your own.

It's a simple concept -- you have freedom of speech, as long as you're using your own property.

Wrong! You can yell "FIRE!" from your own property and your own megaphone, but if the panic causes damage and injury to others then your "freedom of speech" won't stand.

Apologies. I was not clear in what I said.

What I meant was, your freedom of speech does not extend to the use of other people's property. You don't have the freedom to use *my* stuff in *your* speech.

There are, of course, other limitations on your speech -- namely, if it endangers the public or qualifies as libel. In either of those cases, the government can censor you.

I'm not sure why you're bringing property into it...
When fellow citizens decide to act against an anti-American douchebag, it's OK because it's not the government violating "freedom of speech".

It's not the government violating "freedom of speech" -- but that doesn't make it OK.

The reason I'm brining property into it is that, in this case, that's the relevant law. Freedom of speech means the government can't limit this idiot's message (as long as it's not libelous or dangerous), and it says nothing about what private individuals can do in response. BUT, property laws (etc.) do say that we private individuals can't go damage or steal this guy's display just because we don't like what he's saying.

I hate the guy's message as much as you do. But I don't have the right to steal his stuff (or burn his house down) just because I dislike his message.

Let him make a fool out of himself. It's his right.

Lothar wrote: Which is theft, no matter how small it might be. It's a matter of principle -- don't steal people's bandwidth. Ask permission, or use your own.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the door to your webspace was open, and the graphics were un-available for public consumption, after I visited your site without restriction, thanks to the smiley that you posted for everyone to see. Did you ask for permission to use my username, in your smiley, that led me to your webspace, or is that not covered by your principles?

What I meant was, your freedom of speech does not extend to the use of other people's property. You don't have the freedom to use *my* stuff in *your* speech.

I can. First it's a parody from which I derive no economic profit. Second it's derived from publicly available material that you posted for public access. There's a reason why we have usernames/passwords to make changes to DescentBB and none to view graphics on your webspace.

There are, of course, other limitations on your speech -- namely, if it endangers the public or qualifies as libel. In either of those cases, the government can censor you.

As I stated before, government wasn't that guy's problem, it was his fellow citizens acting against him on various levels. A citizen took down his effigy, citizens talk down on him with the press and visitors, citizens haven't given up information to the government, he now has to spend more time, effort and money to get his idiotic display up.

It's not the government violating "freedom of speech" -- but that doesn't make it OK.

Sure it does. The ultimate power lies with the citizenry and obviously the citizenry are against him. Do you really think something that obnoxious in today's world gets torn down and nobody sees anything?

BUT, property laws (etc.) do say that we private individuals can't go damage or steal this guy's display just because we don't like what he's saying.

The law exists for the government to enforce based on what the citizenry deems as acceptable. That guy crossed the line so the government is unable to enforce the law because other citizens will not cooperate.

I hate the guy's message as much as you do. But I don't have the right to steal his stuff (or burn his house down) just because I dislike his message.

Silly man, stealing his property and burning his house down were never rights because "rights" are limitations on government not on individuals. They weren't rights, they were reactions to his original action of putting up the display. Here's where freedom comes in. You are free to stand idly by while someone else is free to tear the effigy down without consequence.

Let him make a fool out of himself. It's his right.

Making a fool of yourself is not a right, it's an action! Go read the Bill of Rights, it's not in there.

Let me put it this way. It looks like you're married. What if you catch a scumbag raping your wife? Are you going to wonder if you have the right to take his life? Are you going to ponder the intricacies of the law relating to murder? Or are you just going to react to the the scumbag's actions and kill him in order to save your family?

Do have the right to kill a man? Is it a "right" that is expressed in our federal or state founding documents? It's against the law to take another life. But guess what? Law enforcement and a jury of fellow citizens will probably let you go even though you killed the scumbag. Why? Because you weren't the bad guy, the rapist was the bad guy. I'm not the bad guy, the anti-American traitor who hung the effigy of a soldier is the bad guy. The bad guy got what he deserved. If he keeps pushing, don't be surprised if his house burns down. Heck, since he's a Liberal he'll probably burn his own house down.

KlubMarcus wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the door to your webspace was open, and the graphics were un-available for public consumption, after I visited your site without restriction, thanks to the smiley that you posted for everyone to see.

That's because you don't understand basic internet etiquette.

You can get to any image hosted on my webpage without a password. It wouldn't be much of a webpage if people couldn't view it. But, I, as the owner of my webpage, am the ultimate authority on how the content I'm hosting is displayed. I'm the one paying for the transfer, so that means I set the rules on who can use my bandwidth. You can use my images (as long as you don't violate copyright) but you're not permitted to leech off of my bandwidth.

KlubMarcus wrote:

What I meant was, your freedom of speech does not extend to the use of other people's property. You don't have the freedom to use *my* stuff in *your* speech.

I can. First it's a parody from which I derive no economic profit. Second it's derived from publicly available material that you posted for public access. There's a reason why we have usernames/passwords to make changes to DescentBB and none to view graphics on your webspace.

Notice I said nothing in my response about whether or not:
1) you derived economic benefit
2) the material was publicly accessible

Those things are irrelevant. They're relevant for determining whether or not you can reproduce the image -- but they're irrelevant for determining whether or not you can use my bandwidth.

The only thing that's relevant is the fact that I'm the one who pays for the bandwidth on my site, so I'm the one who has final say over how my bandwidth is used. I say that my bandwidth should only be used by people who are viewing my site (as a whole) or by those viewing images I've personally embedded in other webpages. My bandwidth should not be used by those viewing images embedded by other people -- that's not why I pay for that bandwidth.

That's a general principle on the internet. Don't use other people's bandwidth for your own purposes. If you want to use the image, put it on your OWN site where YOU pay for the bandwidth.

Do you understand the distinction between copying someone's image (which you can do, provided you don't break any copyright laws), and using their bandwidth (which you shouldn't do)?

KlubMarcus wrote:government wasn't that guy's problem, it was his fellow citizens acting against him on various levels.

Right. And, like I said, his fellow citizens do not have the right to do so in the way they did. His property is protected by law from theft and vandalism.

KlubMarcus wrote:The law exists for the government to enforce based on what the citizenry deems as acceptable.

Law is based on what the citizens deem acceptable through their vote -- not based on what one or two citizens deem acceptable on a whim. (It may be that the law is not enforceable -- but that still doesn't make violating it *right* or *moral*, it just makes it safe.)

KlubMarcus wrote:stealing his property and burning his house down were never rights ... they were reactions to his original action of putting up the display.

They are reactions which are in violation of his right to property. That's why people can be arrested for theft -- theft is a violation of people's property rights.

KlubMarcus wrote:Go read the Bill of Rights...

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words, not all rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It's just the starting point. Additional rights include, for example, the right to not have your stuff stolen and/or vandalized.

KlubMarcus wrote:What if you catch a scumbag raping your wife?

As long as he's interfering with her rights, he's forfeit his own. But once he's been sufficiently deterred, I no longer have the right to injure him, regardless of how much I want to.

KlubMarcus wrote:It's against the law to take another life. But guess what? Law enforcement and a jury of fellow citizens will probably let you go

Does that make it right?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it's right.

KlubMarcus wrote:I'm not the bad guy, the anti-American traitor who hung the effigy of a soldier is the bad guy.

In this case, you'd both be the "bad guy" -- him, for being an idiot, and you, for stealing/breaking his stuff. But it doesn't matter who's a "bad guy" -- what matters is that it's wrong to steal or break his stuff, no matter how offensive it is, even if you can get away with it.

KlubMarcus wrote:He's hanging a SOLDIER's effigy, connect the dots.

I get it that you don't care for what he did. As a former member of the US armed forces, I don't particularly care for it either. However, all emotional rhetoric aside, how does this make him a traitor? Please answer the question.

KlubMarcus wrote: You're telling me to tone down my rhetoric while you defend a man who hangs an effigy of a soldier who keeps you free while insulting the taxes that we all pay? Yeah, you're serious all right, seriously idiotic!

Your rhetoric and my defense of his right to do what he did are two separate issues.

Issue #1: You tend to use rhetoric and emotionally charged language when arguing a point. That won't get you very far on this board. It tells me that a) you don't have a good grasp on the issues past a cursory understanding, b) you have a grasp on the issues but would like to muddy the waters -so to speak for- your own personal amusement, or c) you are just too lazy to present a credible argument. Which is it?

Issue #2: I am not defending what he did. I think it was overly inflammatory and designed to elicit an emotional response rather than to encourage serious discussion. What I am doing is defending his right to do what he did. He is making a statement about the Bush administration. As such, I see that his actions fall under the realm of political speech. Therefore, his action is protected under the first amendment. Just to remind you, the soldierâ??s he is hanging is effigy fights to guarantee his right to do that.