- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/6/22 at 12:39 am to Jjdoc
I think everyone is misconstruing the substance of what she is saying and presenting it totally out of context. This is not a good-faith claim that “It’s A Wonderful Life” is racist. The justices in this hearing are proposing a range of hypothetical situations to probe the inner and outer limits of what constitutes protected speech across various client-serving artistic disciplines, specifically as it relates to race and sexual orientation. Some of these examples are more farcical than others, but that’s because such edge cases help to define the farthest boundaries of the free speech principle at hand.
Justice Jackson is proposing a hypothetical scenario in which a video artist offers to film recreations of “It’s A Wonderful Life” featuring the clients who purchase the service. Justice Jackson is specifically asking whether using the justification of maintaining historical racial verisimilitude of the original film to deny this service to people of color would be protected as speech, or whether this would violate the rights of such clients.
“It’s A Wonderful Life” has an entirely white cast, so if an artist refused to film a recreation featuring people of color on the grounds that in order to be authentic and true to the original film, the actors in the recreation must be white, would that be sufficient to pass muster under the current laws? Maybe so, or maybe not, but either answer gives us a clearer definition of the principles in question in this case.
Justice Jackson is proposing a hypothetical scenario in which a video artist offers to film recreations of “It’s A Wonderful Life” featuring the clients who purchase the service. Justice Jackson is specifically asking whether using the justification of maintaining historical racial verisimilitude of the original film to deny this service to people of color would be protected as speech, or whether this would violate the rights of such clients.
“It’s A Wonderful Life” has an entirely white cast, so if an artist refused to film a recreation featuring people of color on the grounds that in order to be authentic and true to the original film, the actors in the recreation must be white, would that be sufficient to pass muster under the current laws? Maybe so, or maybe not, but either answer gives us a clearer definition of the principles in question in this case.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 12:44 am to Godfather1
The first paragraph is a nonsensical word salad.
I don’t know what the second paragraph is referencing but at least they look like real sentences.
I don’t know what the second paragraph is referencing but at least they look like real sentences.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:01 am to stormchaser_64
quote:
stormchaser_64
Exactly, while I think an artist should have that freedom I'm shocked pretty much no one responding could figure out the point she was trying to make.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:01 am to stormchaser_64
I think you are overthinking. Does someone own the rights to it?
Then you can’t make it.
See, we have laws and such for that kind of stuff.
If not, no one is stopping Justice Jackson to make her black wonderful life movies. Or any black Christmas movies for that matter.
Then you can’t make it.
See, we have laws and such for that kind of stuff.
If not, no one is stopping Justice Jackson to make her black wonderful life movies. Or any black Christmas movies for that matter.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:05 am to Azkiger
quote:
Exactly, while I think an artist should have that freedom I'm shocked pretty much no one responding could figure out the point she was trying to make.
Oh what made you get that idea?
quote:
“I want to do video depictions of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ and knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I’ll give to everybody else I’ll sell them anything they want, just not the ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ depictions,” Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I‘m expressing something, right? For the purposes of that speech. I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”
She is saying exactly what’s she’s saying. Because it’s Christmas time she used a wonderful life. I guess a only white person movie, and that because I’m an artist and made it, I can only sell to whites if I want to.
That’s her argument. Stop trying to make it something it’s not.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:10 am to dgnx6
quote:
That’s her argument. Stop trying to make it something it’s not.
What have I tried to make her argument other than a racial version of the reason gay couples are getting turned down for service?
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:12 am to stormchaser_64
quote:
Justice Jackson is specifically asking whether using the justification of maintaining historical racial verisimilitude of the original film to deny this service to people of color would be protected as speech, or whether this would violate the rights of such clients. “It’s A Wonderful Life” has an entirely white cast, so if an artist refused to film a recreation featuring people of color on the grounds that in order to be authentic and true to the original film, the actors in the recreation must be white, would that be sufficient to pass muster under the current laws?
Your interpretation is wrong, though. She is proposing a hypothetical that is not relevant to the case. It is a weak straw man.
quote:
I can say anti-discrimination laws can’t make me sell ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ packages to non-white individuals.”
You’re talking about producing - relevant to the case. She is talking about discriminatory selling of already produced work - not relevant to the case.
Jackson is trying to make her case on discrimination against a customer. The case is about forcing an artist/producer, whether it be a website developer, film director, etc., to produce something against their conscience.
This post was edited on 12/6/22 at 1:16 am
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:12 am to dgnx6
quote:
I think you are overthinking. Does someone own the rights to it?
Then you can’t make it.
Huh? He never stated his stance, only clarified her argument...
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:15 am to Azkiger
You brought in hiring of actors and other shite into it.
Plus race and sexual orientation are very different things.
She’s talking about selling a product. Like the gay cake thing.
She’s arguing if she made a white Christmas movie should be allowed to only sell to whites. Kind of forgetting the whole religious aspect of it.
And I’m an atheist. But we shouldn’t bow down to sexual deviants.
Plus race and sexual orientation are very different things.
She’s talking about selling a product. Like the gay cake thing.
She’s arguing if she made a white Christmas movie should be allowed to only sell to whites. Kind of forgetting the whole religious aspect of it.
And I’m an atheist. But we shouldn’t bow down to sexual deviants.
This post was edited on 12/6/22 at 1:17 am
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:18 am to dgnx6
quote:
You brought in hiring of actors and other shite into it.
Citation needed.
quote:
Plus race and sexual orientation are very different things.
They're both viewed as immutable traits and protected by anti-discrimination laws.
If you can refuse custome art for guys you can do the same for racial groups.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:20 am to dgnx6
quote:
She’s arguing if she made a white Christmas movie should be allowed to only sell to whites. Kind of forgetting the whole religious aspect of it.
Is there a religious defense being argued here?
To my knowledge the defense is essentially "I'm an artist and no one should be able to make me create art I don't want to create."
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:20 am to Jjdoc
She’s never sounded intelligent.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:21 am to Azkiger
quote:
They're both viewed as immutable traits and protected by anti-discrimination laws.
Point to me in the constitution where it talks about your gender identity….
This is the Supreme Court, not your clown world.
This post was edited on 12/6/22 at 1:22 am
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:23 am to dgnx6
quote:
Point to me in the constitution where it talks about your gender identity….
1964 civil rights act covers all the protected demographics.
quote:
This is the Supreme Court, not your clown world.
Keep grasping at straws.This post was edited on 12/6/22 at 1:24 am
Posted on 12/6/22 at 1:54 am to Jjdoc
The other judges be like I may have to head out to retirement early than have to listen to that nonsense everytime an argument is brought to the table. Nah
This post was edited on 12/6/22 at 1:56 am
Posted on 12/6/22 at 2:30 am to Azkiger
quote:
“ They're both viewed as immutable traits and protected by anti-discrimination laws”
WRONG…men wanting men is not immutable nor moral. It’s deviancy.
Is pedophilia immutable? According to current academia it is.
American liberals…a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 5:15 am to Azkiger
quote:
I'm shocked pretty much no one responding could figure out the point she was trying to make.
People figured it out but none were persuaded because she did such a horrible job with analogy selection.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 5:21 am to Jjdoc
She's disgusting.
Posted on 12/6/22 at 5:22 am to dgnx6
quote:
So you are telling me the woman put in strictly based on race isn’t qualified?
Hold up.
Are you a biologist?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News