"Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but what right does a person have to share that opinion if it causes harm to another person?"
It's rare that someone says so plainly what they mean: If I don't like what you say, you shouldn't be allowed to say it.
Words -- labels -- are thrown around very carelessly. If someone cracks
a joke and someone else feels offended, it is "harassment" or
"bullying" or "harm". In reality, it's neither, but by attaching those
specific words, "I felt insulted" is put alongside sexual harassment and
stalking and assault.
That quote came about in reference to a
Facebook page which posted images of obese persons in costumes. The
page was likely mean-spirited. It was insulting. Did it rise to the
level at which we say, "You aren't allowed to say that?"
In the
meat world, there are lots of public spaces. In the public spaces, the
1st Amendment to the US Constitution permits one to say nearly anything
they want. And someone is allowed to respond in kind -- in speech. Those
public spaces are bordered by private spaces where you can continue to
speak your mind, without needing to share the space. You're allowed to
express hate for anyone. Blacks. Jews. Gays. Women. Immigrants. You can
say some pretty vile stuff. Your right to say it is codified in our
primary legal document.
On the internet, there are NO public
spaces. Everything is private space owned or provided by someone else
and you have no rights. If they don't like what you say, they can find
someone in the chain -- the forum, the hosting provider, the ISP, even
the DNS registrar -- who will pull the plug on you rather than deal with
whatever harassment or bullying they get from the people who don't like
what you say.
Yes, some of it rises to actual harassment and
bullying. Filing a complaint is one thing -- going onto forums to
badmouth the company, contacting business partners, trying to cause them
enough harm that they'll do what you want, that IS bullying. It IS
harassment.
And yet, because of the internet, you don't pass
anything you don't choose to. There's no issue of sitting in the park
with your kids and seeing hateful signs across the street. Those kinds
of borders are entire walls on the internet. You cannot see through
them. If you don't like a Facebook page, you don't have to click on it.
That's it!
Or, at least, it should be. However, rather than
making the personal choice to avoid something, rather than fighting
speech with more speech, someone tries to make enough noise, disrupt
operations enough that someone in the chain says, "Enough!" and yanks
the page down.
Because if what you say harms someone, what
right do you have to say it? In the real world, you have every right. On
the internet, you have none
Labels: bullying, constitution, convention, cosplay, facebook, first amendment, free speech, geek, harassment, internet, nerd, science, speech
Americans Want to Keep Affordable Care Act
A new
Kaiser poll reveals some interesting numbers: 60% of polled support the Affordable Care Act, 60% object to Republican attempts to block it from the budget. Support for specific elements of the law have even higher support.
These numbers are significant and show that the people like and want the law, contrary to Republican lies and the media who repeat them. How bad is the lying? 22% of people polled thought the law was repealed - where would they get so misinformed?
Could it be these Fox News articles?
America Rising: Obamacare Repealed in the HouseHouse Republicans Vote to Overturn ObamaCare in Symbolic MoveJudge Rules Health Care Law Is UnconstitutionalThe Act is a law and it's been held as Constitutional by 2 of the 4 federal judges who've reviewed it. Some parts of the law won't go into effect for another few years - everything else is in full effect.
And when you start asking people about the facts of the law, they LOVE it! 70% of those who want to repeal the law, want the small business tax credit. 60% want to close the Medicare "doughnut hole", 52% want to give financial to people who can't afford private insurance, 56% want to guarantee insurance and prevent companies from denying coverage, and 40% want to increase the Medicare payroll tax on the "wealthy". This is all amongst people who want to repeal the law!
Fox News lies and people who watch Fox News buy into the lies. When you present the facts, people choose progressive options.
Labels: affordable care act, constitution, fox news, government, health care, kaiser poll, politics, progressive, republican
We're not discriminating, it's just gender bias!
From the
Associated Press:
In a letter to Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the federal appeals court judge said she is convinced that the club does not practice "invidious discrimination" and that her membership in it did not violate judicial ethics.
Firstly, "invidious discrimination" is redundant since "invidious" means "discriminatory". I know this because I looked it up. If you're going to use a word I have to look up, at least use it like you aren't named Debra Jo and married to your cousin.
Secondly, YES, if you are a member of a club which prohibits membership based on gender, it IS discriminatory. Where the fuck did Obama find this person?
I want to support her because she's Obama's pick. Flat out, she is just as, if not more, qualified judicially than either Alito or Roberts. Compared to Harriett Myers, she's King Fucking Solomon. But I'm getting less and less impressed by her interpretation of the law. She is not a "liberal" judge. She's a former prosecutor; she follows the law to the letter, even when it contradicts justice; she has the (common) oppressive view of minors, that they are property and lacking in rights; she supports Roe v. Wade.
Yeah, that last one is the clincher. Nothing else matters as long as she favors allowing you to put a pair of scissors in your son's skull before he exits your body. She isn't liberal and she isn't progressive. She's in favor of abortion rights. That's her major selling point, quickly followed by her genitalia and her ethnic background--I don't know that the last two were a requirement for nomination, only that they're being used for promotional purposes.
I want a justice who recognizes that
the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments try to codify a basic tenet of the Framers: Do not EVER give the government the benefit of the doubt and the law must favor the citizen
in all things, especially when accused.
If the letter or the spirit of the law favors the citizen, that is which should be followed.
I want a justice who knows THAT.
Labels: constitution, justice, law, obama, politics, scotus, sotomayor
No, not fairness. The Law.
Dallas Police Chief
David Kunkle thinks it violates "fundamental fairness if people don't have the opportunity to know what they're being charged with". Really. Those of us who've got a brain think IT VIOLATES THE FUCKING SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
This guy isn't a small town douchebag police chief who doubles as the undertaker. This is a big town douchebag police chief who runs on the of largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
Does anyone feel safe in a city where the police chief doesn't know the amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Or where the media doesn't call out such a fucker?
Labels: constitution, government, law, media, police
