Should Free Speech Allow This Type of Activity to Continue?

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
Should Free Speech Allow This Type of Activity to Continue?

To get the whole story, watch the video as well.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/artic.../19679815?icid=main|main|dl1|sec1_lnk3|178715

A Georgia couple were devastated to learn that a someone took a graphic cell-phone video of their daughter moments after she was killed in a car crash and shared the footage with others. And they're angry because they say it shows the first responders didn't rush to check on her.

"I don't know which one's worse," Lucretia Kempson said on NBC's "Today" show. "Seeing the video of my daughter -- it hurts because I didn't want to see her that way. But hearing them with no urgency to see if she was OK really upset us."

Dayna Kempson-Schacht, 23, was killed July 17 when her SUV crossed a highway median, flipped several times and crashed into trees outside Griffin, Ga., according to media reports. The coroner told her parents she was killed instantly.

Late last month, Jeff Kempson said he was told by a relative about the video, said to be taken by a firefighter.

"I viewed the video, and as we know without a doubt, it was our daughter Dayna," he said on "Today." "And it was just too terrible to put into words."

He described the non-urgent tone of the responders. "It sounds like a casual conversation," Kempson said on "Today." "They're discussing parts of the accident. You just don't hear them say, 'Let's get in there and see if she's OK. Let's reach in and check for a pulse.'

"There was just no urgency there to even check her to see if she was alive," he added.

The 30-second video shows close-up images, including her body, and two responders can be heard talking about what they see, according to Fox 5-TV in Atlanta. They also are said to be describing body parts.

"Just to lose her was traumatic in itself," Jeff Kempson told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday. "She had severe head trauma. It made the video all the more grotesque."

Sheriff's investigators from Spalding County confirmed the video was taken by one of its firefighters on his personal cell phone and shared with colleagues, Fox 5-TV reported. A second firefighter took it to a bar, where he texted it to people there, and it kept spreading, the station said.

"This person has no compassion," Jeff Kempson said, according to NBC.

The sheriff has apologized but is unsure if any laws were broken, NBC reported. A call to the sheriff's office today by AOL News was referred to the county attorney, who was unavailable to comment.

Jeff Kempson said he'd push for a law to make sure videos like this are not taken again, saying responders don't need cell phones because they have radios.

"If they're not given the opportunity, then we don't have to worry about it happening again," he said on "Today."

The video has haunted his wife, who's having trouble sleeping.

"It's hard closing your eyes because ... that's what you see is Dayna laying in her car and not being cared for the way she deserved," Lucretia Kempson said on "Today."

Family wants a law written to prevent this from happening to other people.
 
The fact that it was a first responder that actually captured the video complicates the issue. The video demonstrated that he and others were not doing the job they were supposed to do.

The fact that this was captured on video and these people can be reprimanded is a good thing. If they're not going to do the job they were supposed to do then it's a good thing that these jerks basically incriminated themselves by taking the video. Doubt a situation like this would happen again given what happened.

It'd be kinda fun to think of a situation where you wouldn't propose some kind of law banning free speech. Emotions, political speech. Seems like there's a ton of shit on the table.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes.

It's appalling. But its an accident in a public space so there's no invasion of privacy etc.[/QUOTE]

This and what were the parents expecting the first responders to do? Sounds like she was killed on impact.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes.

It's appalling. But its an accident in a public space so there's no invasion of privacy etc.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't it be something different than invasion of privacy?

[quote name='IRHari']The fact that it was a first responder that actually captured the video complicates the issue. The video demonstrated that he and others were not doing the job they were supposed to do.

The fact that this was captured on video and these people can be reprimanded is a good thing. If they're not going to do the job they were supposed to do then it's a good thing that these jerks basically incriminated themselves by taking the video. Doubt a situation like this would happen again given what happened.

It'd be kinda fun to think of a situation where you wouldn't propose some kind of law banning free speech. Emotions, political speech. Seems like there's a ton of shit on the table.[/QUOTE]
It's happened before, that girl in the Porsche because no law currently prevents it. But you sidestepped the question for obvious reasons. You think it is okay unless it proves they didn't do their job correctly. Right?

Come up with some situations and I'll tell you my view, if that's what you're trying to figure out. And frankly, being allowed to protest a funeral from 300-500 feet versus say 50 feet is not banning free speech. Nor is restricting where political candidates can speak in certain venues.
 
It already happened, and like you said, no law currently prevents it. In this case it's okay because yeah, it showed how these 1st responders didn't do their job.

It's hard to make a case for banning that type of shit when it's in a public venue. There is a law in PA where you can't record without the other persons' consent which makes sense. Obviously wouldn't help in cases like this.

You straight up made a thread asking and arguing that politicians advertising should be made illegal. Yeah, that's banning free speech.
 
Anything that happens in public space and be filmed and shown.

I wouldn't support any laws that limit that. I think stuff like this is appalling and in terribly bad taste to film and distribute. But we have free speech laws, there is no expectations of privacy in public spaces, so it stands.

Just like I had the Phelps families homophobic protests at military funerals, but support their constitutional rights to do so. You don't go around banning stuff and reducing rights just because things are offensive and in poor taste.
 
I'm wondering if I could ask some of you to clear up your stances - is your concern with the firefighter who filmed the scene or the second firefighter who sent it out to everyone?

So long as the scene is under control or the individual filming isn't immediately needed, isn't in the way and is able to respond, quickly, if needed, I do not see a problem with a first responder filming the scene of an accident. Such video can help in teaching and training, in discipline, and even showing people what happens when you use poor choices when operating a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately, because this guy is an idiot, he's fanning the flames for people like this girl's dad to try and get pretty stupid laws put in place. Like this:

Dad Jeff said he doesn't believe responders should be allowed to carry cell phones as their radios are enough
Click to expand...

Um, no thanks. I'd rather our first responders have secondary sources of communication available.
 
How is this a free speech issue?I mean fire the fire fighters for doing something they should have known would cause problems if you want, but how is this an issue of our rights?
 
You don't make training videos from footage shot on your Razr. And they aren't on their own time as passing observers. I would put the maximum possible penalty on the firefighters if firing them isn't possible and would make sure it changed to a offense that would come with immediate termination in the future.

lol no hed wut pass it on
 
I dont see what this has to do with free speech really. This is just a couple of jackoffs being jackoffs.

YEs him showing the video and acting like that was just about inconsiderate as can be but I dont see free speech problems with it. The problem is people want free speech until they think its wrong or crosses their moral boundary and thats now how free speech should work. You cant say "Free speech for everyone..........unless you do or say something I dont like then you shouldnt be able to have free speech anymore."

Do I agree with it? No, but I dont say there should be a law against it because thats being a hypocrite.

Either its all ok or none of its ok.


[quote name='Sporadic']This and what were the parents expecting the first responders to do? Sounds like she was killed on impact.[/QUOTE]

Yes but until the corner declares them dead they are not dead. Not to mention you have issues like a body in total shock can appear dead due to severly decreased resperations and pulse but until you get in there and actual check you have no idea if she is dead or not. Not to mention it isnt there job to say "Well she looks dead to me so we wont mess with it"

Then you have the whole thing of them being on duty and being paid to do their job thing.

And I highly doubt the parents were expecting first responders to record it on a cell phone and walk around talking about the accident instead of actually trying to help like they are supposed to.

Sure sure public domand blah blah but still, its not the legality of it. Its the fact of lack of common sense, manners or consideration at all. Really? Record it on a personal cell phone, show it at a bar? Send it to other people? Thats pretty shitty thing to really. But especially so for a supposed and respected member of the community whos job and paycheck are in place so they can help people, not hurt them emotionally.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It already happened, and like you said, no law currently prevents it. In this case it's okay because yeah, it showed how these 1st responders didn't do their job.

It's hard to make a case for banning that type of shit when it's in a public venue. There is a law in PA where you can't record without the other persons' consent which makes sense. Obviously wouldn't help in cases like this.

You straight up made a thread asking and arguing that politicians advertising should be made illegal. Yeah, that's banning free speech.[/QUOTE]

What is private anymore? If the accident occurred on the girl's property would that change it? So you're okay with that law in PA but you'd be against the same type of law against recording without the consent of an injured or dead person and their survivors? Sometimes people don't consent to being recorded because of the effect it would have on others, not just them self. And in this case the person being hurt by the recording is the parents, the parents should be allowed to not consent in this type of situation in the future.

How many times should I ask you, how is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? You're saying that a person saying fuck is banned in this country under current law.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Anything that happens in public space and be filmed and shown.

I wouldn't support any laws that limit that. I think stuff like this is appalling and in terribly bad taste to film and distribute. But we have free speech laws, there is no expectations of privacy in public spaces, so it stands.

Just like I had the Phelps families homophobic protests at military funerals, but support their constitutional rights to do so. You don't go around banning stuff and reducing rights just because things are offensive and in poor taste.[/QUOTE]

What about the rights of families to avoid mental anguish? Why should a person be allowed to get off on sharing someone else's misery at the expense of someone else? You're acting like psychological damage is nothing in comparison to physical damage. Is not allowing cell phones to be used in such emergency situations, and restricting them to using radios only, banning free speech?
 
Because like you said, they're LESSER THINGS. Who gives a fuck about fuck.

And the law in PA is in place, I presume, because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the phone. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public road.
 
[quote name='Clak']How is this a free speech issue?I mean fire the fire fighters for doing something they should have known would cause problems if you want, but how is this an issue of our rights?[/QUOTE]

The distribution is the free speech issue.

Should people (first responders, or bypassers or media etc.) be able to film gruesome accident scenes and upload the videos online?

It's in terribly poor taste, but its in public spaces so there are no grounds for banning that.
 
[quote name='J7.']
What about the rights of families to avoid mental anguish? Why should a person be allowed to get off on sharing someone else's misery at the expense of someone else? You're acting like psychological damage is nothing in comparison to physical damage. [/QUOTE]

Free speech protects that right.

Just like hate speech is protected. Hate speech clearly can cause mental anguish, but free speech means people have a right to say it.

Hurting someones feelings, causing them anguish etc. is shitty, but people have a right to do it.

About the only limits on free speech are libel/slander where people are deliberately lying with specific intent to damage someone's reputation and stuff that is threat to public safety like yelling fire in a crowded room etc.

Otherwise, pretty much anything--regardless of how offensive, tasteless etc. is protected speech.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm wondering if I could ask some of you to clear up your stances - is your concern with the firefighter who filmed the scene or the second firefighter who sent it out to everyone?

So long as the scene is under control or the individual filming isn't immediately needed, isn't in the way and is able to respond, quickly, if needed, I do not see a problem with a first responder filming the scene of an accident. Such video can help in teaching and training, in discipline, and even showing people what happens when you use poor choices when operating a motor vehicle.[/quote]

Except that wasn't the case here, so the first guy is just as at fault as the second one.

If he was asked to videotape something for teaching, I would expect that he would've been asked to do so by a superior. I also think if such a recording is made, it should only be shown in an educational setting and not be made available for whomever to have a recording of. Of course, I also think it would be courteous to at least notify a victim's next of kin that the video is being used, and quite possibly for them to ask permission to do so.
 
[quote name='Cantatus'] I also think if such a recording is made, it should only be shown in an educational setting and not be made available for whomever to have a recording of. Of course, I also think it would be courteous to at least notify a victim's next of kin that the video is being used, and quite possibly for them to ask permission to do so.[/QUOTE]

All true morally. But constitutionally there is not requirement to do all that for such a case.

It's horribly tasteless and appalling, but protected by the first amendment.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Because like you said, they're LESSER THINGS. Who gives a fuck about fuck.

And the law in PA is in place, I presume, because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy over the phone. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public road.[/QUOTE]

No. When I say lesser things, I mean stuff like not being able to swear or show objectionable material that is less offensive. If shit that is less offensive is censored why should more offensive shit be allowed?

You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your car? Did the girl give consent, did her parents give consent? Do they need to give consent either way before an accident occurs? Should we have every citizen fill out consent forms before accidents or should we have them be asked for consent if such a situation presents itself? Which one costs more money and time?
---
If the accident occurred on the girl's property would that change it?
---
How is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? Prove that it is banning. You never do because you can't.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Free speech protects that right.

Just like hate speech is protected. Hate speech clearly can cause mental anguish, but free speech means people have a right to say it.

Hurting someones feelings, causing them anguish etc. is shitty, but people have a right to do it.

About the only limits on free speech are libel/slander where people are deliberately lying with specific intent to damage someone's reputation and stuff that is threat to public safety like yelling fire in a crowded room etc.

Otherwise, pretty much anything--regardless of how offensive, tasteless etc. is protected speech.[/QUOTE]
They have a right to do it as the law is interpreted now. It doesn't mean the law should not change as new issues come to light. We should not pledge allegiance to how a law was vaguely defined back then hundreds of years ago. We should do our best to adjust it based on the conditions of today. This country was founded to avoid a society that was bound by laws they did not agree with. If we stick to the vague definitions of laws of the past we will not progress enough and we will ultimately become divided. History has shown this.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm wondering if I could ask some of you to clear up your stances - is your concern with the firefighter who filmed the scene or the second firefighter who sent it out to everyone?

So long as the scene is under control or the individual filming isn't immediately needed, isn't in the way and is able to respond, quickly, if needed, I do not see a problem with a first responder filming the scene of an accident. Such video can help in teaching and training, in discipline, and even showing people what happens when you use poor choices when operating a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately, because this guy is an idiot, he's fanning the flames for people like this girl's dad to try and get pretty stupid laws put in place. Like this:

Um, no thanks. I'd rather our first responders have secondary sources of communication available.[/QUOTE]

Such a video can be used to help in teaching, but that wasn't why they took the video. Also, what if the video is leaked? How about cell phones without cameras or secondary radios instead? Or needing to obtain consent?

[quote name='gargus']I dont see what this has to do with free speech really. This is just a couple of jackoffs being jackoffs.

YEs him showing the video and acting like that was just about inconsiderate as can be but I dont see free speech problems with it. The problem is people want free speech until they think its wrong or crosses their moral boundary and thats now how free speech should work. You cant say "Free speech for everyone..........unless you do or say something I dont like then you shouldnt be able to have free speech anymore."

Do I agree with it? No, but I dont say there should be a law against it because thats being a hypocrite.

Either its all ok or none of its ok.
.[/QUOTE]
There already is not Free Speech for everyone. It's more of an ideal than a reality. The problem is that the law is too vague and there are more issues coming up all the time that need to be addressed regarding how they apply to the law. The law can contradict itself at times, but if it was just a general statement that applied to divergent issues it would do more harm than good and contradict itself even more.

Thus, a law should not stand as absolute by being interpreted simply by the general statement it reflects. Specific situations have to have specific law applied to them. As more and more different issues come up, this is happening. We need specific guidelines for separate though similar/appearing to be similar issues. IRhari said the courts are constantly interpreting the applicability of Free Speech. Is this not the same as determining whether specific issues apply to Free Speech, particularly when it is based on the courts (people's) perception of what the law should be? If we apply the law how we think it is meant to be applied based on our perception that is the same as interpreting how it should be applied. It is not doing away with the law.

[quote name='Cantatus']Except that wasn't the case here, so the first guy is just as at fault as the second one.

If he was asked to videotape something for teaching, I would expect that he would've been asked to do so by a superior. I also think if such a recording is made, it should only be shown in an educational setting and not be made available for whomever to have a recording of. Of course, I also think it would be courteous to at least notify a victim's next of kin that the video is being used, and quite possibly for them to ask permission to do so.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Consent from the family.

[quote name='dmaul1114']All true morally. But constitutionally there is not requirement to do all that for such a case.

It's horribly tasteless and appalling, but protected by the first amendment.[/QUOTE]

If something is horribly tasteless and appalling should we let it happen in the future? Or develop specific restrictions just as we already have in regards to the 1st Amendment numerous times.
 
[quote name='J7.']You're saying that a person saying fuck is banned in this country under current law.[/QUOTE]

lol, of COURSE you can say fuck in this country. That is not banned in this country.

[quote name='J7.']You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your car? Did the girl give consent, did her parents give consent? Do they need to give consent either way before an accident occurs? Should we have every citizen fill out consent forms before accidents or should we have them be asked for consent if such a situation presents itself? Which one costs more money and time?[/QUOTE]

How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in your car on a public road? It's been established that when you're in your car on your own property you have an expectation of privacy. Same with a restroom, or a phone booth.
 
[quote name='IRHari']lol, of COURSE you can say fuck in this country. That is not banned in this country.



How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in your car on a public road? It's been established that when you're in your car on your own property you have an expectation of privacy. Same with a restroom, or a phone booth.[/QUOTE]
The analogy went right over your head apparently. Next time keep the sentence it was tied to as part of the meaning "How many times should I ask you, how is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? You're saying that a person saying fuck is banned in this country under current law."

You can't say fuck in an advertisement and AFAIK not on broadcast tv without breaking the law. It is not banned to say fuck in other situations. Same thing as not allowing politicians to spew lies in ads, not allow people to mock the death of a person's funeral from a certain distance, and not allow people to take videos of accident victims and parade them around without the consent of the parents. You haven't banned those things either by restricting them in certain contexts. Yet you keep saying that restricting those in one context = banning them.

You own your car, strangers are not allowed to sit in it and film you, without your consent. It's no different than someone being able to do that when you're sitting in your car on your own property. Are people allowed to film you take a shit in a public restroom or record your private conversation because it's a public phone booth?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']All true morally. But constitutionally there is not requirement to do all that for such a case.

It's horribly tasteless and appalling, but protected by the first amendment.[/QUOTE]

To be clear, I'm not arguing constitutionally. Honestly, if I had to vote on it, I'd really have to think hard about where I'd come down on that side of things. I am arguing from the standpoint of how I'd feel were I in the family's place and how I'd feel if I were to find a video of a dead loved one online. The way I see it, the people whose jobs it is to take our lives in our hands when we need them have certain moral obligations to respect our privacy. I sort of see it as along the lines doctor's being limited in what sort of information they can pass along.

Perhaps I am idealistic, but I don't think we should always have to legislate what is and isn't right. However, since there are people who will do sleazy things like this, there should be consequences. Those consequences should be determined at the workforce level though, since this has a lot to do with an employee's actions while on the job.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The distribution is the free speech issue.

Should people (first responders, or bypassers or media etc.) be able to film gruesome accident scenes and upload the videos online?

It's in terribly poor taste, but its in public spaces so there are no grounds for banning that.[/QUOTE]
Well if he's on the clock I'm sure they could fire him, but either way like has been said, public space, no expectation of privacy.
 
[quote name='J7.']You haven't banned those things either by restricting them in certain contexts. Yet you keep saying that restricting those in one context = banning them.[/QUOTE]

I don't ban anything. I'm just a citizen.

Explain what you mean by this: "you keep saying that restricting those in one context = banning them". Give examples too.

The government is limiting right to free speech in the 1st amendment by banning shit on TV like fuck and shit and cunt and piss and cocksucker motherfucker tits. I have never taken a position on this. I never endorsed nor condemned this. Stop saying 'you keep saying' because I haven't said anything about this. If the government is going to limit the applicability of the 1st amendment, then if its for small shit like saying fuck or cocksucker on TV it's not outrageous.

Laws limiting where religious buildings can be built based on raw emotion? Outrageous. Laws limiting whether or not a candidate can lie? Outrageous.

[quote name='J7.'] You own your car, strangers are not allowed to sit in it and film you, without your consent. It's no different than someone being able to do that when you're sitting in your car on your own property. Are people allowed to film you take a shit in a public restroom or record your private conversation because it's a public phone booth?[/QUOTE]

I specifically stated there are public places (LIKE RESTROOMS AND PHONE BOOTHS) where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy; this means no recording or filming.

Coming into your car and filming you is the same as filming you from outside your car while you are in your car? Please explain...
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't ban anything. I'm just a citizen.

Explain what you mean by this: "you keep saying that restricting those in one context = banning them". Give examples too.

The government is limiting right to free speech in the 1st amendment by banning shit on TV like fuck and shit and cunt and piss and cocksucker motherfucker tits. I have never taken a position on this. I never endorsed nor condemned this. Stop saying 'you keep saying' because I haven't said anything about this. If the government is going to limit the applicability of the 1st amendment, then if its for small shit like saying fuck or cocksucker on TV it's not outrageous.

Laws limiting where religious buildings can be built based on raw emotion? Outrageous. Laws limiting whether or not a candidate can lie? Outrageous.[/QUOTE]

You're just being an antagonistic jerk when you say "I don't ban anything. I'm just a citizen" I never accused you of banning anything. You split my quote up and pretend I was saying something I did not. The quote is below to show when I said you I was referring to the public. It is beyond obvious. It seems you can't address everything debated so you're starting to resort more and more to making up shit, misquoting, and trying to piss me off.
You can't say fuck in an advertisement and AFAIK not on broadcast tv without breaking the law. It is not banned to say fuck in other situations. Same thing as not allowing politicians to spew lies in ads, not allow people to mock the death of a person's funeral from a certain distance, and not allow people to take videos of accident victims and parade them around without the consent of the parents. You haven't banned those things either by restricting them in certain contexts. Yet you keep saying that restricting those in one context = banning them.

I already gave the fucking explanation and examples. You're being a complete douche. I told you in the other thread I am not going to type up lengthy explanations of things I have already clearly explained, every time it's my turn to reply to you. Especially when you choose to always pick one or two things I say and ignore everything else and ignore clear questions that I ask you to answer. And your response is always a sentence or at most a few sentences, with half of them being complete BS sometimes or demands for me to write up lengthy explanations with examples, when the examples are sitting you right in the face. You have no fucking answer for many of my questions so you always fucking ignore them. You can't answer the question because you'll have to concede something. Case in point, I asked you, "How is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? Prove that it is banning."

Making political ads illegal, asking for the builders of a mosque to choose another site if they're willing to do so themselves, preventing EMT's from carrying cell phones with cameras, making people shouting hatred things toward those burying their son do so from a farther distance away is not banning free speech.

How did you start your overall position in this thread...
[quote name='IRHari']
It'd be kinda fun to think of a situation where you wouldn't propose some kind of law banning free speech. Emotions, political speech. Seems like there's a ton of shit on the table.[/QUOTE]
Just like you accused me in the 911 thread and the political ad thread.

[quote name='IRHari']It already happened, and like you said, no law currently prevents it. In this case it's okay because yeah, it showed how these 1st responders didn't do their job.

It's hard to make a case for banning that type of shit when it's in a public venue. There is a law in PA where you can't record without the other persons' consent which makes sense. Obviously wouldn't help in cases like this.

You straight up made a thread asking and arguing that politicians advertising should be made illegal. Yeah, that's banning free speech.[/QUOTE]

You assume the only way to avoid this is to ban it. Right after that you say that because I made a thread arguing that politicians advertising should be made illegal, I am banning free speech. You've made this claim numerous times.

No shit you did not directly state that position. But you can't accuse someone of wanting to ban free speech because they advocate for the same stuff already in law that is not deemed to ban free speech. If you think free speech is being banned by censoring where someone can say something, it is the same as saying they banned free speech by censoring where they could say something else (that happens to be less offensive too).

Why does it make more sense to censor shit that is not that offensive and argue to not allow far more offensive shit to be censored under the grounds that you're banning free speech?

Quoting you, "The government is limiting right to free speech in the 1st amendment by banning shit on TV". Ya it's only banned on TV. Just like not allowing cell phones with cameras while on EMT duty is not banning people from being able to own and use a cell phone with a camera or insert any of the other things I advocated.

You need to understand that you don't have to specifically state something to endorse a position of something that falls under the same criteria. When you accuse someone of banning free speech by censoring where someone can say something, you're saying the same shit about something else that is censored. If A is censored but it's not banned entirely, how does B being censored mean it's being banned entirely?

It's not raw emotion, it has deeper effect than that. It's not limiting whether or not a candidate can lie, it's putting them in a position where it's harder to lie and harder to lie without people realizing it. At the same time the money fucking wasted on ads could be put to some real use. But you'd rather have the public be misinformed because somehow if you restrict one avenue for politicians giving their position it's going to lead to everyone not being able to say what they want in their own lives.

[quote name='IRHari']I specifically stated there are public places (LIKE RESTROOMS AND PHONE BOOTHS) where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy; this means no recording or filming.

Coming into your car and filming you is the same as filming you from outside your car while you are in your car? Please explain...[/QUOTE]
WTF, you're mad confused over a simple example. Furthermore, I did not say film you from outside your car. You're fucking confused because you didn't give what I said any contemplation. You rushed into a response without knowing what I meant. "I said being able to do that." The word "that" means the same as the action mentioned in the previous sentence...

When you're in your car in public or on your own property, a person is not allowed to sit in the car and film you, without your consent. It doesn't matter, because the inside of your car has an expectation of some privacy. If there's no expectation of privacy on the inside of your car while you're in public, then there would be no expectation of privacy in a public restroom or phone booth.

When you're in your car you have conversations with people, you listen to certain music, you engage in personal matters, even if you're in public. There is an expectation of privacy to that. The only non-privacy comes from what people can see looking at you from outside your car. If someone was able to intrude on that privacy without your consent or because you could not give consent, and without your family's consent, it is an intrusion of privacy.

I said earlier to dmaul1114 couldn't this whole story be different than invasion of privacy. I meant the whole situation in that people are allowed the means to do this, without consequences, and distribute it, despite them being given no consent to do so. Maybe I was also wrong by saying that to him because it is intruding on privacy, but there is more to it than just that.

If you continue to intentionally try to piss me off by acting snarky and demanding explanations and examples when I've already clearly illustrated something, asking me to come up with these detailed responses when you in turn type up a few sentences where only part of it is a genuine response, ignore much of what I say, and ignore direct questions, I will ignore you. I've never ignored anyone on CAG before, but nobody else has acted in such a way and done so on a continuous basis.
 
You think that if the government bans what you call 'lesser speech' on TV and such, then the next logical step is to ban MORE speech that YOU deem to be more offensive. Lies that politicians tell, moving 'offensive sites' near sites of tragic events, etc.

My position is this. We have the right to free speech. The 1st Amendment LIMITS what the GOVERNMENT can do to limit our free speech. Already that is being limited; can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't say fuck shit cocksucker motherfucker tits piss on TV.

THIS should be the extent to which the government limits our right to say whatever we want. I want to follow the constitution which limits the amount of power the government has. I don't know why you object to this. You want to ban speech and religious buildings based on butthurt. I find that irritating.
 
[quote name='J7.']
If something is horribly tasteless and appalling should we let it happen in the future? Or develop specific restrictions just as we already have in regards to the 1st Amendment numerous times.[/QUOTE]

I can think of pretty much no circumstances that I'd ever support anything that lessened the 1st amendment and limited speech.

It's a dangerous, slippery slope and something being tasteless/appalling/offensive etc. is a very subjective thing.

I'd rather be shocked and appalled sometimes, than have any further limitations put on freedom of speech or expression. That's one thing that's great about our country. I'm no jingoistic, go USA chestbeater, but our freedoms is one thing that sets us apart from most other countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='J7.']Come up with some situations and I'll tell you my view, if that's what you're trying to figure out. And frankly, being allowed to protest a funeral from 300-500 feet versus say 50 feet is not banning free speech. Nor is restricting where political candidates can speak in certain venues.[/QUOTE]

You don't understand or care about free speech. We get it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You think that if the government bans what you call 'lesser speech' on TV and such, then the next logical step is to ban MORE speech that YOU deem to be more offensive. Lies that politicians tell, moving 'offensive sites' near sites of tragic events, etc.

My position is this. We have the right to free speech. The 1st Amendment LIMITS what the GOVERNMENT can do to limit our free speech. Already that is being limited; can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't say fuck shit cocksucker motherfucker tits piss on TV.

THIS should be the extent to which the government limits our right to say whatever we want. I want to follow the constitution which limits the amount of power the government has. I don't know why you object to this. You want to ban speech and religious buildings based on butthurt. I find that irritating.[/QUOTE]

It's not a logical step from that. It's pointing out that if less offensive shit is censored, it's not banning something by censoring more offensive shit.

How many people view the word fuck said on tv to be more offensive than shooting video of a fatal car accident victim whose injuries were probably downright sickening to look at and spreading it, allowing it to spread everywhere, at the parent's expense?

Ya already less offensive shit is censored.

If that's your position than you shouldn't allow them to continue to interpret the 1st Amendment, even though you earlier pointed that out as a positive aspect, and you should also make anything censored or banned not censored or banned anymore.

How is censoring in one context the same as banning speech? I keep asking, you keep ignoring the question, and then basically reinforcing that view while you deny it. How is asking the builders of a building to not build that close by their own decision, banning the building?

Keep ignoring the question.
Quote
"How is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? Prove that it is banning."
Quote
If A is censored but it's not banned entirely, how does B being censored mean it's being banned entirely?

[quote name='dmaul1114']I can think of pretty much no circumstances that I'd every support anything that lessened the 1st amendment and limited speech.

It's a dangerous, slippery slope and something being tasteless/appalling/offensive etc. is a very subjective thing.

I'd rather be shocked and appalled sometimes, than have any further limitations put on freedom of speech or expression. That's one thing that's great about our country. I'm no jingoistic, go USA chestbeater, but our freedoms is one thing that sets us apart from most other countries.[/QUOTE]

What about the stuff that is already in law that limits speech? Libel? Slander? You would have to repeal those then.

How subjective are the views on how tasteless/appalling/offensive taking this video and spreading it at a bar was? Where it will probably end up on the internet just like what happened to the Porsche girl.

Because it's not your child. The shock and appall you feel from hearing about this stranger's story is worlds apart from what the parents are going through.
 
Give me an example for your shitty question because I have no idea what you're blabbering about. I never said you're banning the mosque. But you do want to ban situations like that in the future.

YOu said you don't want a stab in the sand kick in the eye to any victims of any tragedies anymore by building stuff near tragic sites. Doesn't get more bullshitty then that. Denying people their right to build shit because of butthurt.

[quote name='J7.']
What about the stuff that is already in law that limits speech? Libel? Slander? You would have to repeal those then.[/QUOTE]

Do you not realize that libel/slander actually affects the subjects? You don't see that difference? Seriously?
 
I really don't see the distinction in being "officially" against something vs. harassing someone until they give in to what you want anyway.
 
[quote name='J7.']I
What about the stuff that is already in law that limits speech? Libel? Slander? You would have to repeal those then.[/quote]

Read all of people's fucking posts before responding. I already said those are about the only limitations I support. And those are very limited cases where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that 1) The statements were false. 2) The person making them knew they were false. and 3) That their was deliberate, malicious intent to damage the plaintiffs reputation.


You don't go banning stuff just because it's in poor taste and offends people. Do that and we lose one of the few reasons the US is a better place to live than many other countries.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Give me an example for your shitty question because I have no idea what you're blabbering about. I never said you're banning the mosque. But you do want to ban situations like that in the future.

YOu said you don't want a stab in the sand kick in the eye to any victims of any tragedies anymore by building stuff near tragic sites. Doesn't get more bullshitty then that. Denying people their right to build shit because of butthurt.



Do you not realize that libel/slander actually affects the subjects? You don't see that difference? Seriously?[/QUOTE]
You know what I asked, there's no need for me to explain it a 10th time.

How is censoring in one context the same as banning speech? I keep asking, you keep ignoring the question, and then basically reinforcing that view while you deny it. How is asking the builders of a building to not build that close by their own decision, banning the building?

Keep ignoring the question.
Quote
"How is it banning when lesser things are censored and politicians could still say what they want to say outside of advertisements? Prove that it is banning."
Quote
If A is censored but it's not banned entirely, how does B being censored mean it's being banned entirely?
-----
You never said I banned the mosque? You don't currently say I'm banning all religious buildings by only preventing them from being built near huge terrorist attack sites for a limited period of time after the attack? Delete all your old posts from the mosque thread then...

Notice what I underline because this quote of mine is taken out of context. It should be well known that I said they have the right to build the mosque there and it is their own decision to make. But I can also say they don't have a right to build there AS IF IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY. There's a big difference there.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7656712&postcount=785
Quote:
Originally Posted by J7.
I agree, I also think they don't have a right to build there as if it's perfectly okay. In this case we can't move the new WTC and it wouldn't make much sense to move the memorial when the new WTC is still there. It does open the floodgates, but maybe a law can be written that no religious buildings of any denomination can be built a certain amount of mileage near sites where thousands were killed by the likes of terrorists associated with said religion for a certain period of time to prevent stuff like this occurring again. That way both sides can avoid this situation without getting into it in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRHari
I hope this is sarcasm. First, they absolutely have the right to build there. Amendment 1 baby. Second, I didn't realize you wanted your opinion reflected in policy. I certainly don't want mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J7.
Your opinion is reflected in policy when you support a standing policy. Because it already exists doesn't make it perfect.
-----
People grieving over their dead relatives appalling deaths is butthurt? I forgot you were some god who could tap into people's feelings and experiences.
-----
You don't see that those deaths and things that are direct reminders of them actually affect the families? Seriously?

You don't see that one saying they're against circumstances for lessening or limiting speech MEANS you would have to be against the circumstances that are already lessening and limiting speech? You don't want anything lessening the 1st Amendment or speech unless it's already part of the law, then it's okay...

Is there any slander or libel in political ads? Does it suggest it's okay for others to do such things? Is that more harmful to people than the word fuck? Granted, slander or libel in political ads would still not be as bad as being able to lie to gain control over people's lives.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Read all of people's fucking posts before responding. I already said those are about the only limitations I support. And those are very limited cases where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that 1) The statements were false. 2) The person making them knew they were false. and 3) That their was deliberate, malicious intent to damage the plaintiffs reputation.

You don't go banning stuff just because it's in poor taste and offends people. Do that and we lose one of the few reasons the US is a better place to live than many other countries.[/QUOTE]

I did read each and every post in this thread, why do you think I brought up libel and slander? One can't say that libel or slander is worse than what happened to these parents, without experiencing both themselves. What do you think people said about the parents of the Porsche girl after seeing what happened? They faced slanderous accusations on top of the shit they were already dealing with due to the death and the video. And they faced those accusations directly because of the video that was taken and spread.

We need to get beyond the viewpoint that if we censor or prevent something that is appalling and psychologically damaging to people that it's going to lead to all of our other freedoms being lost. We are not that pathetic and we have the power to repeal a law if it doesn't help. It's worse to not take any action than to attempt and repeal if need be.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm wondering if I could ask some of you to clear up your stances - is your concern with the firefighter who filmed the scene or the second firefighter who sent it out to everyone?

So long as the scene is under control or the individual filming isn't immediately needed, isn't in the way and is able to respond, quickly, if needed, I do not see a problem with a first responder filming the scene of an accident. Such video can help in teaching and training, in discipline, and even showing people what happens when you use poor choices when operating a motor vehicle.

Unfortunately, because this guy is an idiot, he's fanning the flames for people like this girl's dad to try and get pretty stupid laws put in place. Like this:



Um, no thanks. I'd rather our first responders have secondary sources of communication available.[/QUOTE]

Haha this is the first post I've seen that is 95% pure unadulterated bullshit, but then actually makes a decent point in the two last sentences. Usually it's the other way around.

Well - I guess even a blind squirrel stumbles over an acorn eventually.
 
[quote name='J7.'] One can't say that libel or slander is worse than what happened to these parents, without experiencing both themselves. [/QUOTE]

Slander is much worse as it can ruin reputations, careers etc. and it involve malice with lies told with the intent to do harm to the person. Those deserve legal protection and limiting of free speech.

We can't limit free speech just to save people from emotional distress. Accidents happen in public, douchebags are free to take pictures and videos and put them online. Douchebags like the Phelps group are free to bash gays at military funerals etc. Hate groups are free to spew their filth, even though it clearly upsets the targeted groups and others.

That kind of shit's appalling, but we can't reduce our first amendment rights just because we don't like these activities and because they hurt people's feelings. The most we can do is use our free speech rights to speak out against these things. But trying to limit free speech rights is about as un-American as you can get.
 
[quote name='J7.']You don't want anything lessening the 1st Amendment or speech unless it's already part of the law, then it's okay...[/QUOTE]Protection of the 1st Amendment is pretty important. You actually want Congress to make a law banning religious institutions near tragic sites that were created by people of that same religion. THat is fundamentally unconstitutional. You want people to bear the blame and the pain of the actions of their most extreme members. That's disgusting.

[quote name='J7.'] Is there any slander or libel in political ads? Does it suggest it's okay for others to do such things? Is that more harmful to people than the word fuck? Granted, slander or libel in political ads would still not be as bad as being able to lie to gain control over people's lives.[/QUOTE]Politicians are public figures. There is a much higher standard to prove libel/slander. Do some research man, c'mon.

[quote name='J7.']People grieving over their dead relatives appalling deaths is butthurt? I forgot you were some god who could tap into people's feelings and experiences.[/QUOTE]No, it isn't butthurt. They have a right to grieve and they should grieve, it's a sad situation.

The 'butthurt' I'm talking about is stuff like what offends your delicate fukcing sensibilities. Ugh I'm so butthurt, I hate watching political ads. Let's ban those on TV. THAT is the butthurt I'm talking about.
 
[quote name='IRHari']
Politicians are public figures. There is a much higher standard to prove libel/slander. Do some research man, c'mon.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Much harder to win libel/slander cases if you're a public figure. They're considered fair targets for satire etc.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Protection of the 1st Amendment is pretty important. You actually want Congress to make a law banning religious institutions near tragic sites that were created by people of that same religion. THat is fundamentally unconstitutional. You want people to bear the blame and the pain of the actions of their most extreme members. That's disgusting.

Politicians are public figures. There is a much higher standard to prove libel/slander. Do some research man, c'mon.

No, it isn't butthurt. They have a right to grieve and they should grieve, it's a sad situation.

The 'butthurt' I'm talking about is stuff like what offends your delicate fukcing sensibilities. Ugh I'm so butthurt, I hate watching political ads. Let's ban those on TV. THAT is the butthurt I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
As I said before, how often do 911 level attacks happen in a country with separation of church and state? And, is the constitution never amended? "A constitutional amendment is a change to the constitution of a nation or a state."

Don't bring up accusations of wanting people to bear blame and pain, if you're going to fully dismiss or ignore the pain of the families. That's just as disgusting. I said it was unfair to the builders and more so the followers who would use the mosque, that is why I give them the option on what to do. A law going into place for future types of situations avoids them choosing such sites, avoids the ignorant hating them, and avoids hurting the victim's relatives more. And it's not permanent, it's temporary. The temporary aspect gives compassion to both sides. It would be rare where such a law would ever be required.

So there is slander/libel going on by politicians, it's just more justified and harder to prove... It's easier to return the favor than it is to prove it. Let it increase exponentially over time as more do it and the public see's it as something to imitate. It's more okay to have someone use satire against you and tell lies than it is for them to say fuck? Not only are we allowing the public to be misinformed by political ads, we are allowing others to think it's okay for them to do it. How much more dangerous is this than discouraging cursing? There is a difference between satire and lies and the motivation behind each.

[quote name='IRHari']
YOu said you don't want a stab in the sand kick in the eye to any victims of any tragedies anymore by building stuff near tragic sites. Doesn't get more bullshitty then that. Denying people their right to build shit because of butthurt.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not opposing it because of my own feelings, i advocate for the feelings of the families. Their grieving won't reach it's natural flow and resolution with the mosque there right now. I doubt you know much about grieving.

It's not about merely hating political ads. You're not even addressing the reasons behind hating political ads. That issue is another example where I'm putting forth a position that I feel is best for everyone. Prevent lies being told to you in your own home, let candidates speak their views in a more objective forum where people can interact with them and candidates can interact with each other. Let the public get a better idea of the truth since the people in office have control of your life.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Slander is much worse as it can ruin reputations, careers etc. and it involve malice with lies told with the intent to do harm to the person. Those deserve legal protection and limiting of free speech.

We can't limit free speech just to save people from emotional distress. Accidents happen in public, douchebags are free to take pictures and videos and put them online. Douchebags like the Phelps group are free to bash gays at military funerals etc. Hate groups are free to spew their filth, even though it clearly upsets the targeted groups and others.

That kind of shit's appalling, but we can't reduce our first amendment rights just because we don't like these activities and because they hurt people's feelings. The most we can do is use our free speech rights to speak out against these things. But trying to limit free speech rights is about as un-American as you can get.[/QUOTE]

Being an emotional wreck can prevent someone from holding down their career. Facing slanderous accusations due to someone posting a video of your daughter's dead body in a demolished car can ruin someone's reputation. People blamed the parents of the Porsche girl with malice. People repeatedly email the images to them out of malice with the intent to do them harm. They were already dealing with the death too. Slanderous accusations and taunting on top of dealing with the horrible death of their child.

How can we prevent this in a fair way to everyone? Is having the responders not be able to carry a cell phone with a camera a horrible solution when they could be using radios instead and have backup radios for those? If we allow them the right to do these videos for training/educational purposes, is it unfair to everyone to require the parent's consent? Obviously someone will either give consent or no one ever will.
 
[quote name='J7.']I doubt you know much about grieving.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Go fuck yourself. Seriously. You've got some nerve.

[quote name='J7.']Don't bring up accusations of wanting people to bear blame and pain, if you're going to fully dismiss or ignore the pain of the families. That's just as disgusting. I said it was unfair to the builders and more so the followers who would use the mosque, that is why I give them the option on what to do. A law going into place for future types of situations avoids them choosing such sites, avoids the ignorant hating them, and avoids hurting the victim's relatives more. And it's not permanent, it's temporary. The temporary aspect gives compassion to both sides. It would be rare where such a law would ever be required.[/QUOTE]

I'm not dismissing or ignoring their grief. They went through horrific events. But you are using their emotions as a weapon to make them move the mosque.

You're trying to shield yourself from any responsibility so if I disagree, suddenly I don't give a fuck about feelings and grief? THat's bullshit and you know it. And there are more then a few 9/11 families who want it to be built or don't care. I guess you're dismissing their pain and their feelings right? Here comes the 'majority rules' argument.

At least Knoell isn't hiding behind the 9/11 families and standing up and arguing 'mosque = Islam, 9/11 = terrorism, Islam = terrorism' THat takes more guts then what you're doing.
[quote name='J7.']
That issue is another example where I'm putting forth a position that I feel is best for everyone. Prevent lies being told to you in your own home, let candidates speak their views in a more objective forum where people can interact with them and candidates can interact with each other. Let the public get a better idea of the truth since the people in office have control of your life.[/QUOTE]

I don't give a fuck about lies being told on TV. It's up to the people to do their own goddamn research and it isn't the government's job to regulate that. The government shouldn't limit speech based on whether or not it is deemed to be 'true' or not. Hello 1984.

Moreover, how do you determine what a 'lie' is in this day and age? People still believe the lie about 'death panels' in the ACA.
 
[quote name='J7.']As I said before, how often do 911 level attacks happen in a country with separation of church and state? And, is the constitution never amended? "A constitutional amendment is a change to the constitution of a nation or a state."[/QUOTE]

But have you noticed that none of the amendments have ever removed/weakened one of the basic tenets of the Bill Of Rights?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']But have you noticed that none of the amendments have ever removed/weakened one of the basic tenets of the Bill Of Rights?[/QUOTE]

14th amendment destroyed the Freedom of Association in the First.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Wow. Go fuck yourself. Seriously. You've got some nerve.

I'm not dismissing or ignoring their grief. They went through horrific events. But you are using their emotions as a weapon to make them move the mosque.

You're trying to shield yourself from any responsibility so if I disagree, suddenly I don't give a fuck about feelings and grief? THat's bullshit and you know it. And there are more then a few 9/11 families who want it to be built or don't care. I guess you're dismissing their pain and their feelings right? Here comes the 'majority rules' argument.

At least Knoell isn't hiding behind the 9/11 families and standing up and arguing 'mosque = Islam, 9/11 = terrorism, Islam = terrorism' THat takes more guts then what you're doing.

I don't give a fuck about lies being told on TV. It's up to the people to do their own goddamn research and it isn't the government's job to regulate that. The government shouldn't limit speech based on whether or not it is deemed to be 'true' or not. Hello 1984.

Moreover, how do you determine what a 'lie' is in this day and age? People still believe the lie about 'death panels' in the ACA.[/QUOTE]
I did not say you don't know much about grieving (that would've been very bad). I said I doubt you know much. I leave open the option that you do know much about grieving. It's only based on our views and discussions that I feel that way. Don't take it so offensively because it's not meant to be. I am sorry if it upset you.

I'm not trying to shield myself. I am pointing out that if you believe I am bearing blame and pain on the people who would use this mosque, then I can also say you're fully dismissing or ignoring the pain of the families by telling them nothing should be done regarding their concerns over this because the mosque is going up and there's nothing they can or should do about it.

Their experience and it's consequences on them as a means to make the other side understand. I don't see it as a weapon. I see it as offering the other side to understand how they feel.

You care about feelings and grief, but maybe not as much about the type of feelings and grief those family members have.

Positions should not be defined by how much guts the opposition believes a person has for taking such a position. My position is based on my beliefs, ethics, morals, experience, and compassion. It has nothing to do with guts and it shouldn't. I'm not going to change my position based on how gutsy or un-gutsy it is.

If people won't do enough research about candidates then we shouldn't keep a system in place that has them voting based on misinformation. A lot of people simply do not have enough time to do the research. This points to a flaw in the whole system. America is overworked in comparison to many countries.

Deemed vs proven truth are 2 different things. How can you tell a political lie? Catch them in the act sometimes, show they don't know what the hell they're talking about, present contradicting factual information, independent review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top