Reply With Quote
which is not a fault.
Every org's bill of rights is couched in its historical context, all of which are different in the details just like the US's BoR is specifically a response to being a colony, etc.
The National Security Agency and our Department of Homeland Security want to squelch parody that pokes fun at them.
Specifically, Dan’s been selling t-shirts, coffee cups, and other paraphernalia with slogans that mock the two massive spook agencies. For example, one calls DHS the “Department of Homeland Stupidity.” Another says: “NSA: The Only Part of Government That Actually Listens.” And one even alters the NSA’s official logo to read: “Peeping While You’re Sleeping.”
Top spooks at NSA and DHS were outraged, and both agencies took legal action to try stopping McCall from…well, from making fun of them. Technically, though, that’s not against the law (yet), so the agencies had to go after him for “mutilation…or impersonation of government seals.”
http://otherwords.org/peeping-youre-...ughing-matter/
which is not a fault.
Every org's bill of rights is couched in its historical context, all of which are different in the details just like the US's BoR is specifically a response to being a colony, etc.
Right, and it won't allow for the laws someone else cited from the Netherlands.
And USA's BoR applies only to those "exceptional, Better Than All The Rest" US citizens, not to human beings whose "rights" are famously "alienable" simply because they aren't US citizens.
and then there is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights
... with USA as very y signatory.
just one example of corporations restricting "free speech" because it hurts or would hurt its profits:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Mar...%2BText%2BNews
and then there is the "ag gag" laws so popular in red states.
Robertson was in no way restricted from saying whatever the he wanted to say, and A&E was not restricted in suspending him, so pitbull 's/Fox's, whining about 1st Amendment, as always with her incoherence, is off the target, even with a gun-fellatin shotgun.
There must be a contract between A&E and Robertson, with rights given/taken, duties, restrictions, responsibilities, etc that might restrict, or not restrict, Robertson's speech. But it's probably secret.
ethered
Gays full of murder
http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-...ension-2013-12
‘Duck Dynasty’ and Quackery
I must admit that I’m not a watcher of “Duck Dynasty,” but I’m very much aware of it. I, too, am from Louisiana, and the family on the show lives outside the town of Monroe, which is a little over 50 miles from my hometown. We’re all from the sticks.
So, when I became aware of the phobic and racially insensitive comments that the patriarch on the show, Phil Robertson, made this week in an interview in GQ magazine, I thought: I know that mind-set.
Robertson’s interview reads as a commentary almost without malice, imbued with a matter-of-fact, this-is-just-the-way-I-see-it kind of Southern folksiness. To me, that is part of the problem. You don’t have to operate with a malicious spirit to do tremendous harm. Insensitivity and ignorance are sufficient. In fact, intolerance that is disarming is the most dangerous kind. It can masquerade as morality.
A&E, which airs “Duck Dynasty,” moved quickly to suspend Robertson, as his comments engaged the political culture wars, with liberals condemning him and conservatives — including Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a possible presidential candidate — rushing to his defense.
Let me first say that Robertson has a cons utionally protected right to voice his opinion and A&E has a corporate right to decide if his views are consistent with its corporate ethos. No one has a cons utional right to a reality show. I have no opinion on the suspension. That’s A&E’s call.
In fact, I don’t want to focus on the employment repercussions of what Robertson said, but on the content of it. In particular, I want to focus on a passage on race from the interview, in which Robertson says:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. ...They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word! ...Pre-en lement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
While this is possible, it is highly improbable. Robertson is 67 years old, born into the Jim Crow South. Only a man blind and naďve to the suffering of others could have existed there and not recognized that there was a rampant culture of violence against blacks, with incidents and signs large and small, at every turn, on full display. Whether he personally saw interpersonal mistreatment of them is irrelevant.
Louisiana helped to establish the architecture for Jim Crow. First, there were the Black Codes that sought to control interactions between blacks and whites and constrain black freedom. The Jim Crow Encyclopedia even points out that in one Louisiana town, Opelousas, “freedmen needed the permission of their employers to enter town.”
Then, in 1890, the State Legislature passed the Separate Car Act, which stipulated that all railway companies in the state “shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races” in their coaches. The landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case was a Louisiana case challenging that law. The United States Supreme Court upheld the law, a ruling that provided the underpinning for state-sponsored racial segregation, and Jim Crow laws spread.
Robertson’s comments conjure the insidious mythology of historical Southern fiction, that of contented slave and benevolent master, of the oppressed and the oppressors gleefully abiding the oppression, happily accepting their wildly variant social stations. This mythology posits that there were two waves of ruination for Southern culture, the Civil War and the civil rights movement, that made blacks get upset and things go downhill.
Robertson’s comments also display a staggering ignorance about the place and meaning of song in African-American suffering. As for the singing of the blues in particular, the jazz musician Amina Claudine Myers points out in an essay that the blues was heard in the late 1800s and “came from the second generation of slaves, Black work songs, shouts and field hollers, which originated from African call-and-response singing.” Work songs, the blues and spirituals were not easily separated.
Furthermore, Robertson doesn’t seem to acknowledge the possibility that black workers he encountered possessed the most minimal social sophistication and survival skills necessary to not confess dissatisfaction to a white person on a cotton farm (no matter how “trashy” that white person might think himself).
It’s impossible to know if Robertson recognizes the historical resonance and logical improbability of his comments. But that’s not an excuse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/op...f=opinion&_r=0
Phil exposed The Reality Show of the Confederate South.
I know one lady who works in the Landry Parish tourist center on I49 that says the staff are really embarrassed by and tired of tourists asking about, eg, Swamp People and where to find them.
Her problem (all of her own family casually refer to blacks as n!gg@s) is that Swamp People and all the other Confederate white trash (as Phil calls his family), rednecks, bubbas, etc are truly a large part, even emblematic, of the current Confederacy, and non-Confederate red states. The New South is pretty much like The Old South.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-21-2013 at 12:35 PM.
The things I have seen over the years has nothing to do with the civil rights movement, but with the Nanny and welfare state. The war on poverty started about the same time as the civil rights movement. When it became a better option for mothers to split from the father of their children...
‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film
article includes video!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/2...gay-porn-film/
OP why do you care
Nobody cares.‘Duck Dynasty’ creator Scott Gurney starred in indie ‘gay porn’ film
article includes video!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/2...gay-porn-film/
agreed, exemplary Christian phobe Phil probably doesn't care that his riches from DD were created by gay porn actor.
SCALIA CALLS “DUCK DYNASTY” DECISION UNCONS UTIONAL
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lashed out at the cable network A&E today, calling its decision to suspend Phil Robertson, the star of the TV series “Duck Dynasty,” uncons utional, and demanding that it be overturned at once.
Speaking at a press conference with fellow Justice Clarence Thomas, a visibly angry Scalia told reporters that Robertson was “exercising his First Amendment right to express an opinion—an opinion, I might add, that many other great Americans agree with.”
He warned that the suspension of the “Duck” star would have a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech in America: “If Phil Robertson can be muzzled for expressing this perfectly legitimate view, what’s to prevent the same thing from happening to, say, a Justice of the Supreme Court?”
He added that, while he was a huge “Duck Dynasty” fan who never misses an episode, his objection to Mr. Robertson’s suspension was “purely on Cons utional grounds.”
Declaring that A&E’s decision “will not stand,” Justice Scalia said he would ask the Supreme Court to meet in an emergency session to overturn it: “This offensive decision by A&E is a clear violation of the Cons ution, and I’m not the only one on the Court who feels that way. Right, Clarence?”
Justice Thomas had no comment.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...itutional.html
Because they're fake......duh....
Correlation is not causation...and why associate the war on poverty with the civil right movement....there were plenty of working poor whites affected by the war on Poverty...The war on poverty started about the same time as the civil rights movement. When it became a better option for mothers to split from the father of their children...
And why does this bother you?
"why associate the war on poverty with the civil right movement"
because they were both part of the 1960s progress that conservatives/racists/Repug/VRWC hate as much as they hate the progress of the 1930s (FDR, Glass-steagall, SS, FDIC, union legalization/protection, government counter-cyclical stimulus).
It's ALL class (including race) warfare, the white 1% vs all-colors 99%.
I think A&E was just looking for an excuse to dump Duck Dynasty even though they have made millions on the show. The liberal culture at A&E management thought that DD would be an expose on the redneck buffoons that "cultured" people could laugh at like Honey Boo Boo. They never dreamed they would reach cult like status and be the most popular show on cable. It actually turned out to be an embarrassment for A&E management. By doing it this way the DD crew quits and breaks their contract and A&E gets out cheap.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-23-2013 at 08:56 AM.
I looked up the ACLU on wiki and I didn't know that the ACLU backed Oliver North; guess you do learn something every day. I agree that most on the right hate them recently. On the last part, all it will take is a court to say that hate speech inherently causes harm and isn't protected speech, and when it passes a future Left dominated SCOTUS, it's done. Just like when Separate but Equal suddenly became obviously not true, and women always had a right to abortion, starting in the 70's.
Just like when Archie Bunker was supposed to be the bad guy on "All in the Family" while Meathead taught him a lesson every week. Then the masses actually liked him, and... wait! You got it all wrong, masses! Oh well, we made money anyway.
Yeah and Archie worked hard while Meathead spouted views, but had no job.
People liked Archie because down deep he really did not hate.
So explain George Jefferson?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
