| “
|
What
does this have to do with the First Amendment?
President
Barack Obama says he would "think about changing" the Washington
Redskins' name if
The
most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...]
The question in every
case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are
of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr..; Schenck
v. United States1919
he owned the football team as he waded into the
controversy involving a word many consider offensive to Native
Americans.
Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said team names such
as the Redskins offend "a sizable group of people." He said that while
fans get attached to the names, nostalgia may not be a good enough
reason to keep them in place.
I
occasionally make an effort, especially after Sunday Mass, to love my
enemies, but when it comes to Clownbama I'd have to
masquerade as
the village idiot. I really do see Obama as a psycho who
HAS
invaded my home, and at gun-point forced us to hand over our
titles of deed and wealth—and then— for good measure, raped my
wife and children (3 boys
and a girl all), and on the way out reminded us- "I won the election."
So,
you see, it's impossible; but I do what I
can. In
this Redskins
case, I have just two words. First Amendment.
I do not agree with what you have to
say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire
The United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919,
seems to be the genesis for what have become outrages against
First Amendment, like "Hate Speech" laws. I would argue
that the court was wrong in 1919, because it
involved the distribution of flyers opposing the draft
during World War I. Clear and
Present Danger? I don't think so; I
see free speech. Plus, note that Holmes expressed the caveat "falsely" shouting
fire in a theater ... .
Anyway, Liberals have latched onto that
"Fire in the Theater" euphemism to enact "Hate Speech decided
by whom?" laws.
The dangers are obvious, and
inherent. At the heart of the professional anti-Redsikin rabble's
argument is a suggestion that calling a team The Redskins
is as
offensive as calling them The Niggers. I hardly see the social
parallel, but
that's no never mind.
I have a First Amendment right to call
anybody, anything, that does not infer libel or slander, whether
it upsets you or not. Voltaire's "..I'll defend your right to say it
... " was ubiquitously taught when I was schooled, but
now? If enough people feel the same way about The Redskins
as do the savage left, they can call them
the Reds, or any g'damn thing
they like. But ban Redskins legally? What Voltaire said.
Sheesh!
STFU Barry.
|
|
” |
Rodger, I think you will like this: http://intellectualfroglegs.com/rebellion-of-a-sheep-ifl-s2e12/
ReplyDeleteRAK
Because Washington, DC is the home city for the Washington Redskins, and because Washington, DC is the capitol city of the u.S. and, therefore, Federal land rather than part of a state, and because our petulant, despotic, autocratic Ayatollah Liar-in-Chief believes that he is the Supreme Ruler of all things American and, therefore, under his direct control, look for him to issue another of his "Executive Edicts" declaring the Washington football team name "Redskins" null and void and unlawful until they change their name to something more acceptable (at least to him) like the Washington Imams, or the Washington Non-Negotiators, or the Washington Liberals, or the Washington Empty Suits.
ReplyDeleteScottiebillO
You don't choose a term for your team name because it's insulting or denigrating. You choose a term that implies strength, toughness and speed. It's complimentary, not denigrating, and I have yet to meet an Indian that even cares, much less is insulted by using terms like redskin. Just more idiotic babble by babbling idiots.
ReplyDeleteDamn, Renojim
ReplyDeleteYa beat me to th' draw on that. Almost exactly what I was gonna say about strength and skill and pride, and complimentary as opposed to disparaging.
Some years ago some students where I taught had a list of words they wanted banned, most of which referred to gender. They were proponents of shim, herm, heesh, and heshe to eliminate using him or his or he generically to refer to people.
One of the words they wanted banned was "flip-flop," which they said was offensive and insulting for Filipinos. When asked what they'd use in substitute for the term, they said it had to be "shower sandals."
My wife is Pinay and I had several Filipino students in various classes, so I conducted a little informal survey on how offensive the term "flip-flop" was to them. Standard response was that "it never occurred" to them to see it that way until somebody brought it up, and then most of them thought it was funny.
Let's call 'em the Washington Foreskins. Because DC is full of dicks.
ReplyDeleteHey, if you find this unfair, stupid and dishonest you're a racist. You know it too. Otherwise why would you allow the minorities to become majorities? This has nothing to do with Indians. It's all about you White boy. You've gotta go.
ReplyDeleteThe left could have a point. Maybe we shouldn't name teams after Indians, Redskins, Braves, and so on. After all, THEY WERE THE LOSERS!!!! Why name a club after the losers?
ReplyDeleteSell the team to a Philippines business conglomerate and change the name to the Manila Folders.
ReplyDeleteYea! They didn't lose this week! We're number 1! We're number 1!
ReplyDeleteUh-oh.. Cowboys next week and they are mad about the loss to Denver. I predict another record high scoring game..
"You don't choose a term for your team name because it's insulting or denigrating."
ReplyDeleteHuh? The Democrats chose the jackass didn't they?