Current Events

Jason

NAACP rages over "You mad, bro?"

ninjarabbi

How is that even news? Its a fucking sign. Even if it were racist, its still a fucking sign. I mean, its a sports game. Its hardly the first time someone has had a sign taunting the other team.

Reol

The Internet to NAACP: "You mad, bro?"

Greg

And so, I take this time for a gallery of just a few of my favorite signs.





Sadly, I couldn't find "This sign probably won't change your mind about anything."

Jason

Really? REALLY? Some fucktard writer at AP had to know what he was doing with that headline. I would get fired if I wrote a head like that.

Victor Frost

Really? REALLY? Some fucktard writer at AP had to know what he was doing with that headline. I would get fired if I wrote a head like that.

Oh c'mon... in an industry where "crispy critters" is the inside terminology for babies left in cars during the summer, I think that headline is pretty tame.

open_sketchbook

Especially as the origin of the term "crispy critters" is actually for victims of napalm attacks during the Vietnam War.

Jason

My job isn't all bad. Here's the lead to a story I wrote this weekend:



by JASON HAWK
News-Times reporter

The screams of the living were drowned out Saturday by the moans of the walking dead.
A horde of resurrected ghouls shambled through downtown streets, spreading its taint from block to block as horrified shop owners watched.
Cries of, “Brains! Braaaaaiiins,” echoed from the brick and sandstone buildings.
No one knows whether the unnatural plague was caused by dark magic, some curse, or a virus or pathogen.
Medics and police were nowhere to be seen, presumably already swallowed by the undead scourge.
On Main Street, the zombie mass stopped to skirmish with a small band of survivors wielding bats, machetes, and rifles.
“This is the best day of my life. I woke up on the wrong side of the grave,”said zombie Eric Corwin, in full make-up and a tattered suit.

Jason

I would vote for Alec Baldwin for mayor... if I lived in New York.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/alec-baldwin-steals-show-mayor-bloomberg-mayor-awards-jokes-running-office-article-1.970996

Jason

Is anyone following the ridiculous and outdated Supreme Court arguments over FCC regulations on broadcast television? Alito seems to be the only one who understands rabbit ears are relics of another era.

Also, how do these guys not get the First Amendment? I wish Thaed would explain to me in baby talk how we've become a censorship-friendly system.

http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Can-you-say-that-on-TV-The-Supreme-Court-debates-2453257.php

Greg

The way I had it explained to me is that the information is being brought to you. Don't think about the FCC in the modern era of TV Guides being included in every package, but in the era of the '50s when you had to channel surf to know what was on, the way radio is today. If you and your family are on channel 5 and you want to watch channel 7 and channel 6 is showing 2girls1cup, you won't know to have Rylin leave the room for the 1/2 a second you're on the channel.

Jason

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unless it really wants to.

HungryJoe

Unless it really wants to.

Unless someone is willing to pay a lot of money.

This makes me wonder whether this is a better argument for only electing congress from the ranks of the already wealthy, so maybe they won't be bought so easily or if it's a better argument against corporations being so wealthy they can buy Congress.

Jason

I keep saying: Limit all contributions from any one person to any political group to $1 per term (or maybe $5. It could be tied to the CPI). Corporations can even be "people" for this purpose since they do have unique interests.

Jason

Hostess Brands Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Wednesday to confront burdensome debt and labor costs that the Twinkies and Wonder Bread baker says have left it fighting to compete. (Via Ro)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577154402317896574.html

WindUpBird

Hostess Brands Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Wednesday to confront burdensome debt and labor costs that the Twinkies and Wonder Bread baker says have left it fighting to compete. (Via Ro)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577154402317896574.html

What will become of Tastykake!?

SquadronROE

Hostess Brands Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Wednesday to confront burdensome debt and labor costs that the Twinkies and Wonder Bread baker says have left it fighting to compete. (Via Ro)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577154402317896574.html

What will become of Tastykake!?

Bought by a Chinese heavy industrial firm, where the workers' tears will contribute to an invigorating new taste sensation.

Jason

What will become of Tastykake!?

Two different companies, right?

Dragonmaster Lou

Is anyone following the ridiculous and outdated Supreme Court arguments over FCC regulations on broadcast television? Alito seems to be the only one who understands rabbit ears are relics of another era.

I disagree with Alito on this one. Not everyone can afford cable/internet/etc. while the entry cost for a rabbit ear-based TV is still relatively inexpensive without any sort of monthly fee on top of it. Unless we're envisioning a world where only those with money will be able to watch TV...

Also, how do these guys not get the First Amendment? I wish Thaed would explain to me in baby talk how we've become a censorship-friendly system.

The courts have always held that the First Amendment does not apply to obscenity. However, the definition of what is obscene has always been vague.

Jason

But the Constitution does not say that. It doesn't even hint at that. Speech is speech. Any other bullshit the court tries to cram in there is just that.

SquadronROE

But the Constitution does not say that. It doesn't even hint at that. Speech is speech. Any other bullshit the court tries to cram in there is just that.

Are you saying the Constitution needs to be interpreted literally, because that's simply not how it works. The obscenity thing has been a really sticky problem, constantly being re-interpreted and clarified.

Also speech is not speech. Hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment, and threatening someone can be considered assault.

Just so we're clear, I do agree that obscenity laws are usually antiquated and usually are a waste of everyone's time. I'm just trying to focus down the argument a bit.

Jason

What is the point of having a document "protecting" rights if politically-entrenched appointees can just redefine the terminology to advance nearly any agenda they wish? "Congress shall make no law" is pretty fucking clear. For a justice to redefine all the terms of the amendment so as to actively suppress speech destroys the intent of the Constitution.

It's no better than Clinton trying to wriggle out of his testimony by redefining "is."

For the record, I think threats and hate speech should be expressly protected by the Constitution. I realize that may not be a popular thing to say in a sanitized society, but too bad. I don't think it's a stretch to think that in our lifetimes we'll see an administration try to use protectionist restrictions on "threats" and "hate speech" to stomp out political dissent. We're already halfway down that slippery slope with the Patriot Act, with the recent redefinition of a military role in homeland terrorism and indefinite detention, with "free speech zones," and with the continued operation of Guantanamo.

SquadronROE

You think threats of violence when the person hearing it believes those threats are legitimate should be protected? So you'd be in favor of restructuring "assault" charges to simply be "battery" charges?

I think I'm starting to get where your opinion lays. I don't agree with it, but it's an interesting opinion to hear.

WindUpBird

What will become of Tastykake!?

Two different companies, right?

Ah, my mistake. Flowers Foods owns Tastykake; for some reason, I thought Hostess did.

Jason

That's an incredibly simple view of assault and battery. Typically, assault is not interpreted as a mere verbal threat, but an immediate, intense, and personal threat that's typically intimated in a physical manner: Waving a baseball bat at someone in close proximity with clear intent to do bodily harm. Throwing cups or plates or other non-lethal objects at a person's general vicinity in a malicious way. Screaming at someone within an intimate distance -- say, for instance, two inches away from someone's face with the immediate implication of physical action.

I've rarely seen police level an assault charge for a disgruntled boyfriend shouting, "I'm going to kill that bitch" during a domestic dispute.

Dragonmaster Lou

What is the point of having a document "protecting" rights if politically-entrenched appointees can just redefine the terminology to advance nearly any agenda they wish? "Congress shall make no law" is pretty fucking clear. For a justice to redefine all the terms of the amendment so as to actively suppress speech destroys the intent of the Constitution.

That brings up the "it's illegal to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" argument. One of the fundamental interpretations of the Constitution is that the rights granted are limited such that they do not interfere with the rights of others. In the case of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, that is considered a valid ban because the panic that may arise may result in serious injury and even death.

While I don't think hate speech should be illegal (and last I checked, I don't think it is, although things such as vandalism and such that are used to spread hate speech are), I disagree with you on threats. Any credible threat to a person can be viewed as impinging upon the rights of said person. By threats I mean things along the line of "I'm going to commit bodily harm to you" as opposed to something along the lines of "I'm threatening to boycott your product." The threat must also be credible -- someone just yelling "I'm going to kill you" in the midst of a heated argument may not be viewed as credible, depending on the context. However, someone doing so while holding a weapon of some sort can be viewed as credible.

I also agree with the current slander and libel laws as well.

If we really extend things to illogical conclusions, then by your viewpoint things like child pornography should be legal as free speech. Oh, and as part of the same amendment, it should be legal for people to kidnap and kill other people for human sacrifices if their religion requires it as part of free religion.

SquadronROE

That's an incredibly simple view of assault and battery. Typically, assault is not interpreted as a mere verbal threat, but an immediate, intense, and personal threat that's typically intimated in a physical manner: Waving a baseball bat at someone in close proximity with clear intent to do bodily harm. Throwing cups or plates or other non-lethal objects at a person's general vicinity in a malicious way. Screaming at someone within an intimate distance -- say, for instance, two inches away from someone's face with the immediate implication of physical action.

I've rarely seen police level an assault charge for a disgruntled boyfriend shouting, "I'm going to kill that bitch" during a domestic dispute.

I have, when I worked with the Raleigh PD I saw numerous case reports where someone had been arrested and the primary reason was verbal threats. I see your point though, and it would be incredibly rare for the only threat being verbal, as usually there would be a history of violence or something else. Like knowing the suspect had a gun in the house or whatever.

Separate things, anyway. You're talking about constitutional protections, which are far more broadly applicable than specific criminal charges which require more specific requirements be fulfilled.

Constitutionally, I don't know about hate speech being protected. On the one hand, I like people having the freedom to speak their minds regardless of what they want to say. On the other hand, I don't like the thought of someone speaking their mind with the specific intent of causing a negative impact to someone else's way of life. I guess that also comes down to specific criminal charges as well, though. If the hate speech is accompanied by guns and baseball bats, it would cross over into something completely different.

Dragonmaster Lou

Constitutionally, I don't know about hate speech being protected. On the one hand, I like people having the freedom to speak their minds regardless of what they want to say. On the other hand, I don't like the thought of someone speaking their mind with the specific intent of causing a negative impact to someone else's way of life. I guess that also comes down to specific criminal charges as well, though. If the hate speech is accompanied by guns and baseball bats, it would cross over into something completely different.

I am no expert, but I believe the existing case law does protect hate speech but it can still get you on the actions related to spreading that speech. For example, you are allowed to call someone an n-word and even hand out pamphlets, set up web sites, etc., where you do so. However, the line is drawn when you burn a cross on their lawn.

SquadronROE

Constitutionally, I don't know about hate speech being protected. On the one hand, I like people having the freedom to speak their minds regardless of what they want to say. On the other hand, I don't like the thought of someone speaking their mind with the specific intent of causing a negative impact to someone else's way of life. I guess that also comes down to specific criminal charges as well, though. If the hate speech is accompanied by guns and baseball bats, it would cross over into something completely different.

I am no expert, but I believe the existing case law does protect hate speech but it can still get you on the actions related to spreading that speech. For example, you are allowed to call someone an n-word and even hand out pamphlets, set up web sites, etc., where you do so. However, the line is drawn when you burn a cross on their lawn.

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

Dragonmaster Lou

Yeah... I mean, Nazis, the KKK, and whatnot are allowed to have public demonstrations and are protected despite their demonstrations being entirely hate speech. However, as long as the idiots are just gathering and yelling and not otherwise breaking laws, they're legally in the clear.

Neito

I believe that the distinction is the imminence of any violence they advocate, is it not? "Let's kill all the Jews" is (legally) fine, "Let's kill that Jew right there" isn't.