|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2008-01-14 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Blame the Taliban.

User	Chell | 2008-01-14 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Yeah, odd isn’t it?

User	Blue Monk | 2008-01-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Violence and gore is OK, sex is not OK... I think I got it. So it’s OK to "kick some ass", but just don’t fondle it.

User	Chell | 2008-01-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Never fear Blue, you can say ass on television all day long without fear of fines from the F.C.C. "The FCC’s responsibility is to enforce federal obscenity laws. Even these laws don’t define obscenity with a list of words or uses. Instead, material must meet three requirements to be considered obscene: 1.) Applying community standards, an average person must find that the material appeals to the prurient interest. 2.) The material shows or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by law. 3.)The material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." I’m still not sure why you can’t say assh**e on television. I don’t see how appeals to the prurient interest or describes sexual conduct...

User	Blue Monk | 2008-01-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I admit that "kick ass" entry was something resembling a troll, but the phrase was actually delivered "as is" while discussing irresponsible actions and possible reprecussions to a group of "inmates". It boils down to being, as we were saying before, that such colorful language might be appropriate within certain "circles of society" where it would not be elsewhere - kind of a "when in Rome" thing that makes for effective communication. Obviously there were no ladies or preachers present, this probably being some of the mildest language they’ve heard all day.

User	mae | 2008-01-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I think blue that it refers to a donkey and not someone’s hind end. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-01-08 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Ok, if your’re supposed to be "teaching" a bible study, how about explaining something that really pisses you off and saying you’d like to "kick some ass" over that deal? "Ass" is in the Bible numerous times. Don’t believe me? Type in "ass in the bible" in your search engine.

User	Ronswords | 2007-12-31 |
Subject	Hi
Message	Please leave the door open on the way out so others can gain more knowledge God Bless Ron

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Good night and God bless"

User	GoKart Mozart | 2007-12-27 |
Subject	wow
Message	you dont have much of a life, do you? unless you’re like a lawyer/DA or something....

User	machine dream | 2007-12-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	hate crime = thought crime Think about it.

User	Chell | 2007-12-27 |
Subject	untitled
Message	“Where do supposed "hate crimes" - epithets issued principally to or about gays fall in the free speech spectrum?” mae You have to take the good with the bad, right? I still think we should all revert to “Sticks and Stones”- it was a much better system then Politically Correct (Publicly Condemned? Politeness Counterfeited? Proscribed Communication?) But, I do wonder if the gay community overacts a bit. Perhaps they feel that hate speak is just one more dab of salt that gets rubbed in the wounds this society inflicts on those who are homosexual. “Strangely, racial epithets are rarely prosecuted under such laws, but we hear about it from the gay community often, at least here in Western Washington.” mae In my experience, the majority of racial epithets lead to people losing their social status (ie: jobs, friends, political standings, etc.). Some racial slurs lead to violence, usually with two menly-men slugging it out- literally, or with gunpowder- but there’s usually an accompanying history of violence on the two sides. In Portland, Or., it’s a known fact that gay slurs are an indicator that the one using the language wants a confrontation and you need to get somewhere safe Quickly. Sometimes you can’t, and those times usually end up leading to split lips, black eyes, broken ribs, even crushed pelvises and broken backs. Sometimes all they do is throw beer bottles at you at 35 miles an hour. But, in my experiences, most people don’t hurl gay slurs unless they plan on escalating the situation into a violent encounter of some kind. It’s very disturbing to watch a homophobic man take out his pent-up aggressions on a homosexual. “In my opinion, any derogatory speech made to or about anyone is hateful, but, because of the 1st Amendment, should not be called a ’hate crime’.” mae Should it be called a….joke?

User	mae | 2007-12-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Where do supposed "hate crimes" - epithets issued principally to or about gays fall in the free speech spectrum? Strangely, racial epithets are rarely prosecuted under such laws, but we hear about it from the gay community often, at least here in Western Washington. In my opinion, any derogatory speech made to or about anyone is hateful, but, because of the 1st Amendment, should not be called a ’hate crime’. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Perhaps it would pay to compare notes? Anyone else in on this one? (...I thought not)

User	machine dream | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Unfortunately the voices in my head are always listening.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	By way of coincidence, the Parish jail also has just such a room, however, I suspect that it is bugged so it’s best to always be wary.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You definitely wouldn’t want to piss off the Jews. Fortunately I have a small padded and sound proof room in my apartment where I can secretly call them names.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I don’t know about other parts of the U.S., but in my neighborhood profanity expressed in public is simply regarded as possibly bad manners, depending upon who actually heard it and whether they were actually offended. It is not a crime that one can be charged with. Now, if you dropped your pants in public, that could be a crime, again depending upon whether anyone actually cared. There’s obviously something more to the story of Mr. Zundel. Perhaps it simply does not pay to piss off the Jews.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-20 |
Subject	untitled
Message	One serious problem is that many Americans no longer believe in free speech, but in restricted free speech. In North Korea you have free speech as well.. restricted that is.. meaning you can say whatever you want as long as you don’t denounce Stalinism or the government. Banning profanity leads to restricted free speech, which in turn tends to spiral out of control. For example, a racist has a long speech in which he denounces the Holocaust and other forms of blasphemy, when he gets off the stage he stubs his toe and says shit. The next day he’s arrested for using profanity in public, and sentences to pay a 1,000 fine, and risking imprisonment in his 2 year probation period. This is just an imaginary example however, it’s worse for real. Ernst Zundel immigrates to Canada in 1958, has 2 children, in 2000 he moves to the US and marries. In 2003 the police shows up, and he’s arrested for not having handled his immigration papers properly, which obviously was a trumped up charge. He’s deported back to Canada, where his residency had expired by then, so Canada deports him back to Germany, despite that he lived in Canda for 42 years. In Germany he’s subsequently sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for his thought crime, denying the Holocaust on his personal website. If you’re happy with restricted freedom of speech, where you can say whatever you want as long as you think in the desired way and manners, that’s fine, but don’t say you’re in favor of free speech, cause you’re obviously not.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-19 |
Subject	untitled
Message	What you said doesn’t add up Chell. Public opinions stated and/or debate in matters religious or political does not equate to verbal assault, but rather such things form the foundation of Democracy. The prohibition of either by government amounts to "big brother" setting policy in such matters that the founding fathers specifically wished to reserve to individual citizens. Remember that they had just freed themselves from the constraints on both religious and political freedom that was previously tightly held by the British Crown. So when’s the next revolution? We’re very sorry if anyone gets their feelings hurt when some "idiot" feels the compulsion to voice an opinion which is different from what someone else likes to hear but it’s only that, an opinion. If someone wishes to preach that there is no god, that’s fine, but it doesn’t follow that we must immediately erase "In God We Trust" from our collective national verbage to suit that person, even though (chiefly judicial) reactions to such crap manages to "slip in" from time to time. Insults, innuendos, and judgments flow both ways often quite justifiably. But don’t you love it when a lead figure of the "righteous right" gets caught literally with his pants down, getting hoisted by his own petard? Don’t be so thin skinned, their opinions are quite obviously no better than yours. Relax and enjoy the show. Besides, freedom of speech does apply to the individual- in all it’s glory- we can form any political or religious platforms from which to speak publicly, can’t we? That’s exactly what the law provides for - with the caveat which applies to all concerned, "if you don’t like the existing laws, then change them". Sometimes all you need is a friendly judge.