- 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 6/19/17 at 11:36 am to Jack Ruby
It's sad but legally it might be the right decision.
It's almost impossible to legislate decency.
History will always been the final judge.
It's almost impossible to legislate decency.
History will always been the final judge.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:37 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
Not to get too political, but the previous administration corrupted so many federal agencies by using them as political arms to enforce ideology.
What do you think the current administration is doing..and did in the first week of its term?!
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:38 am to StrongSafety
quote:
It's sad but legally it might be the right decision.
dafuq. It was a unanimous decision. Clearly, it was the right one.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."
This is my favorite part of the ruling, considering the times we live in.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:40 am to Fun Bunch
And?
Nations have gotten laws and decisions wrong repeatedly over be course of history.
Law of be land doesn't always mesh with morality and decency.
For example, The dread Scott decision must have been he right decision because the SC said it was huh?
Nations have gotten laws and decisions wrong repeatedly over be course of history.
Law of be land doesn't always mesh with morality and decency.
For example, The dread Scott decision must have been he right decision because the SC said it was huh?
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:42 am to Fun Bunch
I agree.
The ability to offend and decency are 2 different things.
We should protect people's rights to be as verbally indecent and trashy as they want to be.
The ability to offend and decency are 2 different things.
We should protect people's rights to be as verbally indecent and trashy as they want to be.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so we're clear. the ruling was over a the trademark of "The Slants", the name of an asian rock band
If I'm remembering right, I listed to a Planet Money podcast about this whole thing recently. Very interesting.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:44 am to StrongSafety
quote:
Law of be land doesn't always mesh with morality and decency.
i don't think a legal structure should really be in the business of morality
that's why we have the first amendment: to protect us from a tyrannical government trying to legislate our speech with morality codes
now i am not saying that our governmental structures avoid legislating morality. in an ideal system they would lack the power to do so, however
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Then their would be lawlessness.
Would you agree that some of our laws are based on decency and morality, under the guise of "lawfulness" and "order"?
Same sex marriage bans comes to mind immediately
Would you agree that some of our laws are based on decency and morality, under the guise of "lawfulness" and "order"?
Same sex marriage bans comes to mind immediately
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:47 am to StrongSafety
quote:
For example, The dread Scott decision must have been he right decision because the SC said it was huh?
Asinine comparison. Obviously the SCOTUS has made terrible decisions in the past, does that mean we dismiss all? Hardly. Here we are just talking about words, if words offend, that's on the offend person, not the speaker. If certain words or symbols are deemed offensive by all, then they do not need to be banned.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:48 am to StrongSafety
quote:
Then their would be lawlessness.
that's not true
quote:
Would you agree that some of our laws are based on decency and morality, under the guise of "lawfulness" and "order"?
sure. i imagine they're terrible
quote:
Same sex marriage bans comes to mind immediately
case in point
government should not have the power to regulate marriage and then they could never ban interracial or same sex marriages
the solution is less government and removing its power to create such terrible laws
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:52 am to StrongSafety
quote:
It's almost impossible to legislate decency.
Government shouldn't be legislating decency.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:52 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Here we are just talking about words, if words offend, that's on the offend person, not the speaker. If certain words or symbols are deemed offensive by all, then they do not need to be banned.
One could make a factual argument about how press, media, and other forms of rhetoric have been weaponized against people of color or marginalized groups. I mean, we have still have name discrimination in the hiring process, even after education and other baseline measures have been controlled for.
Words matter, and especially for marginalized communities.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:54 am to StrongSafety
Blah blah blah racism.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:54 am to StrongSafety
Read yourself a US Constitution and read this provision of the Lanham Act(passed by CONGRESS) and ascertain where it directly violates the free speech clause.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:55 am to StrongSafety
quote:
One could make a factual argument about how press, media, and other forms of rhetoric have been weaponized against people of color or marginalized groups.
"weaponized" as in a dull butter knife? OK
it's still a ridiculous argument that does nothing except promote totalitarian rule like fascism
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
But why should I feel comfortable with a govt run by people that hate govt?
Also "less govt" could just mean more consolidation of power and responsibility. Additionally, "less govt" in our current political paradigm/context, just means less regulation/enforcement and less entitlements. The "less is more" folks continually call for a bigger and bigger military complex, which itself is an extension of the govt
Also "less govt" could just mean more consolidation of power and responsibility. Additionally, "less govt" in our current political paradigm/context, just means less regulation/enforcement and less entitlements. The "less is more" folks continually call for a bigger and bigger military complex, which itself is an extension of the govt
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:56 am to High C
quote:
Can I get a ruling?
Completely legal and can be trademarked.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 11:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"weaponized" as in a dull butter knife? OK
You're smarter than that. We haven't gotten to where we are by using the same words and rhetoric to describe things. Our language and how we perceive and digest topics has drastically changed over the course of history-- and largely for the better.
It's not a ridiculous argument, it's the truth.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News