To hell in a handbasket

[jumpy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/6943734.stm

It is official, we in Britain now have no sense of humour whatsoever and are now so totally afraid of our own shaddows that we have to persecute people for the amusing slogans on their t-shirts :roll:

[Chock]

Ask yourself one question, were you at school with anyone who said: 'When I grow up, I want to be a street warden'?

Exactly.

:D Chock

[Rilder]

Them brits prolly just hate us americans so wanna get us arrested by any means neccessary..

"Ey You bloody yanks stop breathing its against british laws!"

[STEED]

Peterborough City Council said using insulting or offensive language was an offence, even if it appeared in print.


What Mr Pratt should had said why is there so much bad language on TV, is that OK?

I got a T-Shirt that has on it - Same Sh*t Different Day, plenty of folks found it funny and so did one of my old bosses from years ago when I wore it to work.

[SUBMAN1]

Sad. And what is anybody gonna do about it? Nothing, because the entire English population (STEED excluded) has become sheep with no power to stop the government from getting rediculous.

-S

[STEED]

What this comes down to is PC claptrap and people in my country are letting these jumped up jerks walk all over them, and why? They come out with "what can you do about it?" Show these jerks up for what they are control freaks who hunger for power, I say it's time we throw the book at them and see how they like it.

[Jimbuna]

The t-shirt slogan I always remember is:

"Don't drink the water...the fish f*ck in it"

[STEED]

The t-shirt slogan I always remember is:

"Don't drink the water...the fish f*ck in it"

And we dump are sh*t in it but that's for another day. ;)

[The Munster]

Ask yourself one question, were you at school with anyone who said: 'When I grow up, I want to be a street warden'?

Exactly.

:D Chock

Nah but you could tell which one's would grow up and relish that role, it was written all over them.
What tickles me about this is the old line .. we [the Council] received an official complaint, meaning a third party but if you press them for the source of the complaint, it's 'oh we can't divuldge that information' ... Fair enough but I think 9 times out of 10, that's just an alibi when the power trip went too far.

[AVGWarhawk]

My question here is how far do you let the t-shirt slogans go? First it is this which is seemingly ok. Then what next that might not be ok. A line has to be drawn some where. Ask yourself this, would you want your 6 year old beginning to read and grasping concepts having to look at shirts like this or any other that might be construed as in poor taste? I certainly do not believe my daughters need to see it. There is noise polution that is bad for the ears. There is cigarette polition that is bad for the lungs. Is this considered eye polition that is bad for the young minds? I'm guessing yes.

[CptSimFreak]

My question here is how far do you let the t-shirt slogans go? First it is this which is seemingly ok. Then what next that might not be ok. A line has to be drawn some where. Ask yourself this, would you want your 6 year old beginning to read and grasping concepts having to look at shirts like this or any other that might be construed as in poor taste? I certainly do not believe my daughters need to see it. There is noise polution that is bad for the ears. There is cigarette polition that is bad for the lungs. Is this considered eye polition that is bad for the young minds? I'm guessing yes.

Perfect example of parents blaming seciety for thier own faults.

[Tchocky]

This is a case of someone going too far to ward off a problem that doesn't exist.
As will always happen where there are policemen, and indeed, any forms of authority.
If this story qualifies as hell in a handbasket, then I have been out of the loop too long.

[bradclark1]

Perfect example of parents blaming seciety for thier own faults.
How do you figure that? Parents can't go into stores and throw in the trash t-shirts with objectionable slogans.

[Letum]

You sure it wasn't for his hair style?

[AVGWarhawk]

My question here is how far do you let the t-shirt slogans go? First it is this which is seemingly ok. Then what next that might not be ok. A line has to be drawn some where. Ask yourself this, would you want your 6 year old beginning to read and grasping concepts having to look at shirts like this or any other that might be construed as in poor taste? I certainly do not believe my daughters need to see it. There is noise polution that is bad for the ears. There is cigarette polition that is bad for the lungs. Is this considered eye polition that is bad for the young minds? I'm guessing yes.

Perfect example of parents blaming seciety for thier own faults.


Perfect example of childish society were everything is no holes barred. Shirts like this are unecessary. So are shirts and bumper stickers with inappropiate slogans. It is called being decent. It is silly nonsense like this that degrade society. And young man, what are my faults that I'm blaming on society? When you get a list together please present it to me. When we are done there please provide your Masters Degree in Behavorial and Social Science. Until then, keep your open ended response to yourself until you have some back up. Have you ever had to explain to a child why a woman is wearing a shirt that states "I'm the B!tch"? I have. Well golly, it is just a funny shirt. Don't you think so honey? I'm glad you got it all figured out. When you have children let me know how your outlook on poor in taste slogans are looking to you. If you already have children, good luck to you.

[VipertheSniper]

You sure it wasn't for his hair style?

I know this was a joke, but his hairdo looks atleast somewhat decent compared to some mullet wearing guys around here. I could rip my hairs out when I see them, well, obviously I could rip their hairs out, but I know them pretty well I won't. Still go "Argghhhh" in my head everytime I see them tho.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is a case of someone going too far to ward off a problem that doesn't exist.
As will always happen where there are policemen, and indeed, any forms of authority.
If this story qualifies as hell in a handbasket, then I have been out of the loop too long.

Not really a case of going to far. For example, Bush Gardens Williamsburg, VA. You are taken from the parking area to the park via a tram. While enroute, a person on a speaker tells of rides that are closed or bands that might be playing at the park that day. He also states the Bush Gardens reserves the right to refuse admittance to the park if they deem a t-shirt inappropriate. Whether it be a bad picture, poor in taste slogan or just not enough covering up certain parts. Bush Gardens will offer you a shirt if yours is deemed inappropriate. So it seems Bush Gardens is tired of being told, 'can't you take a joke?" Another : I do not recall the shirt or airline but a passenger was refused boarding because of a t-shirt that was deem inappropriate. It is out there but for some reason when someone pipes up it is all that persons fault. It is always, "can't you take a joke?" Some get tired of taking jokes and turning the other cheek. Funny, years ago shirts like this were not found anywhere. Again, were do we draw the line?

[Yahoshua]

Does the freedom of speech mean anything to people anymore?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif

Sure it can be offensive to some, but if you really don't like it then why don't you come out to the country and live in a rural area?

It's alot safer than daring to venture out among other people who may wear shirts that some consider inappropriate or have bumper stickers that you don't agree with. I mean, sure this guys' shirt may offend someone but heaven forbid that he be able to express himself! People might actually see him for who he is!

Now wouldn't that make it easier for you to decide who you want your children to associate with? You can now go out into the city square and point out the differences in how boys dress in explaining to your daughter of who she may and may NOT date. Ah yes, this will simply make things easier for all of us if everybody dresses the same. Nevermind that little thing called the constitution, or the 1st Amendment. It's just a piece of paper that's outlived its' era.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/knee7rm.gif


In all seriousness though, restricting peoples' ability to express themselves will really, really turn out bad for you. If they can't express themselves openly, they'll do it privately. All you'll have accomplished in doing is to drive such behavior underground. It will produce a seething anger that will turn people against their government, inciting them to flount the government even more whether in public or in private.

Furthermore, while some slogans may be distateful; as you have exemplified for us Warhawk, we have no right to tell people what they can and cannot express so long as it isn't bloodlust or inciteful to violence. This shirt in question obviously isn't inciteful, but is an example of commonly morbid humor. Why then should this man be singled out for having a supposedly "offensive shirt" against which there is no law or mandate but that of the opinion of a thug who convienently hides behind the badge?

Standards of behavior in society is set by society itself, made up of people like me, you, and the man in the article. With this in mind people should be allowed to express themsleves freely, whether or not I agree with it it IS their right to do so (at least for now it is in the U.S.). This sort of behavior from the officer is unquestionably wrong and the comparison woth the officer to a privately owned establishment is as about as far off as you can get.

A restraunt has the right to deny me service for whatever reason they want to come up with, the LEO does NOT have the right to tell me what clothes I may wear or how I should walk. That is what dictatorships do: Forced conformity. The restraunt is a private estalishment, they can do as they please on their property. If they don't like how I look or my politics, then I don't need to give them my dollars, I'll go somewhere else. The sidewalk is a public area, the restraunt is not. The Law Enforcement Officer is a public servant, the restraunt is NOT. The restraunt may admit or refuse customers for whatever reason, the LEO may NOT exert such control over citizens in a public area.

Suppose it were a picture of the Virgin Mary the man had on his T-shirt, would you still support the notion that his shirt may be "offensive" to someone and he shouldn't wear it in public? It's a silly idea to think that you can please everybody because quite simply YOU CAN'T!! Being a part of society means learning to put up with everyone else. Eventually your children will learn a new word, a new trend, a new style of music, and they'll embrace it because they've never seen it before. How you raise your children and how they are introduced into society will largely dictate how they behave in the future.


And now......the short sentence for which I took the long trip to get to:

Controlling how other people express themselves isn't going to insulate your children against a lifestyle you disagree with.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/crosswater.gif

[Letum]

Good post. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

And now......the short sentence for which I took the long trip to get to:

Controlling how other people express themselves isn't going to insulate your children against a lifestyle you disagree with.

Asking everyone here, not just Yehoshua:

Is there a law in your city/county/state/country that would make it illegal to wear a t-shirt that states: "Every <fill in with an ethnic, political or similar identifier> should be killed"?

Free speech is not 100% absolute. To the best of my knowledge, this is true everywhere.

On the subject of the t-shirt shown in the BBC article, I think it's funny and harmless.

[Konovalov]

And now......the short sentence for which I took the long trip to get to:

Controlling how other people express themselves isn't going to insulate your children against a lifestyle you disagree with.

Asking everyone here, not just Yehoshua:

Is there a law in your city/county/state/country that would make it illegal to wear a t-shirt that states: "Every <fill in with an ethnic, political or similar identifier> should be killed"?

Free speech is not 100% absolute. To the best of my knowledge, this is true everywhere.

On the subject of the t-shirt shown in the BBC article, I think it's funny and harmless.

100% agree with what has been said here by The Avon Lady. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Does the freedom of speech mean anything to people anymore?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif

Sure it can be offensive to some, but if you really don't like it then why don't you come out to the country and live in a rural area?

It's alot safer than daring to venture out among other people who may wear shirts that some consider inappropriate or have bumper stickers that you don't agree with. I mean, sure this guys' shirt may offend someone but heaven forbid that he be able to express himself! People might actually see him for who he is!

Now wouldn't that make it easier for you to decide who you want your children to associate with? You can now go out into the city square and point out the differences in how boys dress in explaining to your daughter of who she may and may NOT date. Ah yes, this will simply make things easier for all of us if everybody dresses the same. Nevermind that little thing called the constitution, or the 1st Amendment. It's just a piece of paper that's outlived its' era.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/knee7rm.gif


In all seriousness though, restricting peoples' ability to express themselves will really, really turn out bad for you. If they can't express themselves openly, they'll do it privately. All you'll have accomplished in doing is to drive such behavior underground. It will produce a seething anger that will turn people against their government, inciting them to flount the government even more whether in public or in private.

Furthermore, while some slogans may be distateful; as you have exemplified for us Warhawk, we have no right to tell people what they can and cannot express so long as it isn't bloodlust or inciteful to violence. This shirt in question obviously isn't inciteful, but is an example of commonly morbid humor. Why then should this man be singled out for having a supposedly "offensive shirt" against which there is no law or mandate but that of the opinion of a thug who convienently hides behind the badge?

Standards of behavior in society is set by society itself, made up of people like me, you, and the man in the article. With this in mind people should be allowed to express themsleves freely, whether or not I agree with it it IS their right to do so (at least for now it is in the U.S.). This sort of behavior from the officer is unquestionably wrong and the comparison woth the officer to a privately owned establishment is as about as far off as you can get.

A restraunt has the right to deny me service for whatever reason they want to come up with, the LEO does NOT have the right to tell me what clothes I may wear or how I should walk. That is what dictatorships do: Forced conformity. The restraunt is a private estalishment, they can do as they please on their property. If they don't like how I look or my politics, then I don't need to give them my dollars, I'll go somewhere else. The sidewalk is a public area, the restraunt is not. The Law Enforcement Officer is a public servant, the restraunt is NOT. The restraunt may admit or refuse customers for whatever reason, the LEO may NOT exert such control over citizens in a public area.

Suppose it were a picture of the Virgin Mary the man had on his T-shirt, would you still support the notion that his shirt may be "offensive" to someone and he shouldn't wear it in public? It's a silly idea to think that you can please everybody because quite simply YOU CAN'T!! Being a part of society means learning to put up with everyone else. Eventually your children will learn a new word, a new trend, a new style of music, and they'll embrace it because they've never seen it before. How you raise your children and how they are introduced into society will largely dictate how they behave in the future.


And now......the short sentence for which I took the long trip to get to:

Controlling how other people express themselves isn't going to insulate your children against a lifestyle you disagree with.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/crosswater.gif



But the question still remains. Where do you draw the line? If I put on a shirt with a naked women on it is it ok that I just tell everyone I'm expressing myself? It is not an attempt to isolate children, it is an attempt to draw the line. The old saying, give them an inch, they will take a mile. Furthermore, it is not an attempt to control others way of expressing themselves. It is an attempt to uphold rules, regulations and laws that govern the land. This is what keeps society in check. Unfortunate, everyone likes to hide behind freedom of speech. Others attempt to push the limit.

You mention, how you raise your child will dictate how they will behave in the future....true. But, in todays world, anything goes under the presumption of expressing oneself and daily it is a battle to keep young minds on track so they do grow to be decent members of society. Children are easily influenced.

As far as the Virgin Mary......moot point and a whole other discussion. No one says Merry Christmas anymore. It is happy holidays. Do not want to offend!!!! Being part of society does not mean I have to put up with others. It is called tolerating but again, there is a point of tolerance and a point of going overboard. So basically, I'm to tolerate the heroin addicts who leave dirty needles on the streets for kids to pick up and play with. I'm to tolerate the speeders endangering others on the highway with their recklessness? After all, these people are all part of society. Well no, we do not tolerate everything. Nor should we. They call it the laws. The whole shirt thing is probably blown out of proportion but it does put some light on where society is going. I think I'll get a shirt with two people in a compromising position and parade around the mall with it. After all, it is freedom of speech and expression. And when Mary comes out of Build a Bear with her new stuff toy she built, just as happy as a lark, I will tell her mom, that sooner or later Mary will be exposed to this so why not start now?



I'll ask all again, were do you draw the line? When is it out of bounds?

[AVGWarhawk]

And now......the short sentence for which I took the long trip to get to:

Controlling how other people express themselves isn't going to insulate your children against a lifestyle you disagree with.

Asking everyone here, not just Yehoshua:

Is there a law in your city/county/state/country that would make it illegal to wear a t-shirt that states: "Every <fill in with an ethnic, political or similar identifier> should be killed"?

Free speech is not 100% absolute. To the best of my knowledge, this is true everywhere.

On the subject of the t-shirt shown in the BBC article, I think it's funny and harmless.

Exactly AL! Where is the line drawn? There is a limit. Do I believe this guys shirt is blown out of proportion? Yes. Then again, if this is acceptable, what shirt will be out next to test the waters?

[The Avon Lady]

Do I believe this guys shirt is blown out of proportion? Yes. Then again, if this is acceptable, what shirt will be out next to test the waters?
Generally, there are already laws in place that define what constitutes illegal displays. The usual categories are racial incitement, indecency, etc.

The laws have pretty much remained the same. It's society that's changed and not always in ways that you or I may approve or disapprove of.

[AVGWarhawk]

Do I believe this guys shirt is blown out of proportion? Yes. Then again, if this is acceptable, what shirt will be out next to test the waters?
Generally, there are already laws in place that define what constitutes illegal displays. The usual categories are racial incitement, indecency, etc.

The laws have pretty much remained the same. It's society that's changed and not always in ways that you or I may approve or disapprove of.

The thing here is as the waters are tested and the limit pushed, eventually categories of racial incitement and indecency (etc) become the norm and acceptable. The problem remains, when a individual or group is cited for something such as this...it is always covered by the freedom of expression clause...our however they choose to twist the law to fit the bill as it were. Now we have Yahoshua who feels the Constitution has outlived itself. It has not, it has been twisted and defined to fit the bill when brought up in debate or court of law in today's world. It is the Bill Clinton 'what is 'is'? argument. I'm interested in Yahoshua new wording for the Constitution that will govern todays world. This should be interesting.

[CptSimFreak]

From now on every color other than black is offensive. Any person out of regulation will be shot on spot.


//---Signed---//
AVGWarhawk

:roll: :roll: :roll::roll: :roll:

So how many regulations do we need before we get to this? Where do WE draw the line?

Laissez-faire!

[AVGWarhawk]

From now on every color other than black is offensive. Any person out of regulation will be shot on spot.


//---Signed---//
AVGWarhawk

:roll: :roll: :roll::roll: :roll:

So how many regulations do we need before we get to this? Where do WE draw the line?

Laissez-faire!
You are missing the point. For example, if this shirt is left to slide by what is the next shirt going to be that will expected to 'slide by'? Like I stated earlier, give an inch and they will take a mile. But you have not answered the question that I have already posed....were do we draw the line? You have only answered my question with the same exact question. Perhaps you do not have the answer? I'm not sure. Looks to me that a line is being drawn here on this shirt or any shirt in the like of this particular garment. As a result, everyone is up in arms. Yet, no one is up in arms when a speed limit is set or cut off time for bars to be open is set. So why a t-shirt. Self expression? Well, I find drinking past the cut off hours and driving over the speed limit is my way of self expression. Doing both of these is not ok? Why is this t shirt ok? Perhaps driving to fast can be physically dangerous due to a possible crash. Perhaps this shirt can be mentally dangerous to a young mind and is equally as bad. This shirt is ok for what reason? Because it is funny? If this is the case then all and any laws should be determined valid if we determine the object/person/garment/action is funny. I see many on the thread find the shirt as funny and as a result, nothing should be imposed. Not quite how it works folks.

[CptSimFreak]

I think you’re the one who is missing the point. When citizens lose rights by increased laws, they never get those rights back. There are laws of decency and no need to increase based on your ‘hurt’ feelings if you are unable to educate your child. If minority starts dictating what is proper, then it will end up with people wearing only black clothing (exaggeration obviously and hopefully).

[AVGWarhawk]

I think you’re the one who is missing the point. When citizens lose rights by increased laws, they never get those rights back. There are laws of decency and no need to increase based on your ‘hurt’ feelings if you are unable to educate your child. If minority starts dictating what is proper, then it will end up with people wearing only black clothing (exaggeration obviously and hopefully).
Save the hurt feelings nonsense and unable to educate my children. Nothing but assumptions on your part and a very wrong thing to do. I'm sure your vast knowledge of social and behavioral sciences, you can assume this is my problem in raising my kids. You also have the doctorate to back up your assumption? You have simply side stepped the question. There are laws of decency yes and when has someone crossed the line? How is that defined? Furthermore, as far as kids are concerned, why do we even bother to have movie ratings? Come on SimFreak, why not let the small kids go to the X or R rated movies? Explained to me why a movie is rated for content and why a shirt like this when viewed, found to be inapporiate there is an uproar? Who is imposing new laws for this shirt? The decency laws are on the books (as you stated) and when exercised....everyone is out to get me response!?! I have my rights taken away!!! Boo hoo!!! I'm being supressed by the man. Pure nonsense. In your eyes the shirt is fine and funny. So saying anything about it makes you automatically assume that person is a failure to his family and society, blaming it all on society(assumed by you). In someone elses eyes the shirt as offensive this person has his own personal faults and failings in life because he does not see the shirt as funny(as assumed by you). So if movies are rated and children are not let into R or X rated movies, why not shirts that display R and X rated type content? Perhaps this shirt(in the article) is not R or X rated material but who is to say if we can get away with this shirt, how about one with two naked people doing it like Banshee's? Yeeeeaaahhhh, funny!!! Well, Warhawk does not think so. He is a failure in life and to his kids as a result.....assumed by you......

[Yahoshua]

Now we have Yahoshua who feels the Constitution has outlived itself. It has not, it has been twisted and defined to fit the bill when brought up in debate or court of law in today's world. It is the Bill Clinton 'what is 'is'? argument. I'm interested in Yahoshua new wording for the Constitution that will govern todays world. This should be interesting.

Was the http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif icon not big enough for you to notice? Just curious because I don't think you've quite caught the amount of sheer cynicism that was in that part of my post there.

As for your "anecdote" of naked ladies on your T-shirt and/or explicit depiction of sexual positions, I believe indecency laws already cover that aspect Since it can be considered public display of pornography (a display already banned by law).

Children are easily influenced.

Whom do your children spend more time with? Their friends and teachers, or you? I know children can be easily influenced, this is why it is the job of the parents to properly raise them, talk to them, and spend time with them. That's something alot of kids parent's aren't doing anymore (this is most pronounced with my generation). They usually sit their children down in front of the electronic babysitter (the TV) and unwittingly indoctrinate their children against everything their parents have taught them.

Whose fault is it then for what those children learn? The television or the parents? You control almost EVERYTHING that you children will see and what they will be around. You also control HOW your children will adapt to something you don't agree with, whether it be a slogan you don't agree with or a dirty word they shouldn't know.


So basically, I'm to tolerate the heroin addicts who leave dirty needles on the streets for kids to pick up and play with. I'm to tolerate the speeders endangering others on the highway with their recklessness? After all, these people are all part of society. Well no, we do not tolerate everything. Nor should we. They call it the laws.

You seem to have a tendency of making assumptions about me and then blowing it out of proportion. Please don't do that to yourself, you'll only end up with egg on your face (which is NOT my intent).

I believe the laws already dictate that some drugs are legal (as per pharmaceutical companies) and some drugs are illegal (as per methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc.). Speed limits are already enforced, although in some cases very much unfairly, **cough cough** INDIANA **cough cough**. My point on this being that the comparison you are making is off-topic (not to mention absurd).

Moving on: (Now the long way around to a short point) The bum on the street has every right under free speech to yell whatever curse word he can come up with so long as it isn't directed at any one person, race or gender. I have just as every right to go to the public school football field and pray the Hail Mary as that bum on the street does to curse until his lungs run dry.

Do I appreciate what the bum is doing? No I don't, and I can ask him to stop but it doesn't mean that he has to listen to or obey me. Likewise the bum may not appreciate me praying the Hail Mary in the street just opposite him, but I have every right to pray there (so long as I'm not obstructing pedestrian traffic) and I don't have to listen to a word the bum says to me. I can also wear slogans that say things like this:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/th6324290.jpg

But it doesn't allow me to display outright pornography or photographs of people in compromisng positions in public.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/Errorhead.gif

What free speech also does NOT allow me to do is verbal/visual incitement of hatred/violence, sexual discrimination, harassment based on race, or cause a general disturbance of the peace by blaring my Death Metal music at full volume while in my car and driving around the neighborhood at 0300.

That is free speech.

I'm not going to pretend to be your babysitter and tell you where you should define your beliefs. Only you can draw the line for your own family. You decide how you want to live, how you want to care for and raise your family, and how your family members will establish their lifestyle. Some decisions I may agree with, and some I may not. Yet, I have as much right to agree with you as I do to disagree with you and vice versa.



As per AL question, I believe you've already answered it for me:

Generally, there are already laws in place that define what constitutes illegal displays. The usual categories are racial incitement, indecency, etc.

The laws have pretty much remained the same. It's society that's changed and not always in ways that you or I may approve or disapprove of.

I agree with this statement.

Even so, I have to grapple with the fact that the same right that allows me to voice my opinion means that I must also tolerate the opinions of others. But to go to the point of saying that such-and-such must be banned because it may be considered "offensive" (as opposed to what is already banned or restricted) is a slippery slope I'd rather not risk going down on. Current laws on public indecency, slander, and incitement to violence are pretty well covered right now (save for the fact that it's not quite catching up to the newer technology as fast as it should).

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/2cents.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

Was the http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif icon not big enough for you to notice? Just curious because I don't think you've quite caught the amount of sheer cynicism that was in that part of my post there.

As for your "anecdote" of naked ladies on your T-shirt and/or explicit depiction of sexual positions, I believe indecency laws already cover that aspect Since it can be considered public display of pornography (a display already banned by law).

It's just a piece of paper that's outlived its' era.


Well no, I did not catch the sheer cynicism in the above quote. Can you point it out? Looks like a statement to me on how you feel about the Constitution. Perhaps in your mind the tone of the statement was cynical but I can not translate your tone with this statement in written form as being cynical.

Whom do your children spend more time with? Their friends and teachers, or you? I know children can be easily influenced, this is why it is the job of the parents to properly raise them, talk to them, and spend time with them. That's something alot of kids parent's aren't doing anymore (this is most pronounced with my generation). They usually sit their children down in front of the electronic babysitter (the TV) and unwittingly indoctrinate their children against everything their parents have taught them.


It goes much deep than this. Society has created a two check family to survive. Not many I know who have a stay at home mom like June Cleaver. Both parents are at work to make ends meet. So who is to blame really? The parents or the system to survive and provide? Next time you get a chance, check out college tuitions and let me know if Joe the car salesman can swing the 4 years. Likely not. With that said your next statement.....

Whose fault is it then for what those children learn? The television or the parents? You control almost EVERYTHING that you children will see and what they will be around. You also control HOW your children will adapt to something you don't agree with, whether it be a slogan you don't agree with or a dirty word they shouldn't know.

Ok, how you handle what your child sees....how can I control lug head forklift operator with a poor slogan on his shirt? You stated below...you can sit there and tolerate the bum with slurs but you can not control him. How then do you pin this on the parents? It is out there. Plain and simple. Yet, when one person raises an eyebrow on a indencent slogan on a shirt, all hell breaks loose. And it is the parents fault to boot. I do not have to tolerate the bum. The bum need not tolerate me. It is called abiding by the law and being civil. Being tolerate does not give the golden key to the crapper allowing anyone to do what they want with out recourse. Yet, if is the parents fault because according to you I need to steer clear of areas that might present such characters as the bum or lug head fork lift operator. I believe you stated in another post that I should move to a rural area. Unfortunetly the crap is everywhere. It is a constant battle but I get the feeling here you do not know that feeling and probably will not until you own child is put in this situation. Do you have children? If not, how can you really comment with such conviction? If you do, perhaps then we can have conversation on your experiences with it. Until then, this is all conjecture on your part.


At any rate, my point is why such an outrage because someone put the finger on the forklift guy because of his shirt? If all are to be tolerant, then forklift guy needs to be tolerant of those that find the shirt in poor taste. But again, everyone is on forklift guy side because his freedoms are being squelched and it is also a funny shirt. So this is OK. But, my freedom of not having to see such things is being squelched. It is a bad cycle and a lot of gray area.


You seem to have a tendency of making assumptions about me and then blowing it out of proportion. Please don't do that to yourself, you'll only end up with egg on your face (which is NOT my intent).



I have assumed nothing about you and would ask you to point out the assumption I have made. The only assumption about you was done in this post and it concerned children and if you have any. I'm suspecting not do to the statement about blasing Metal Music at 0300 while in your car.


Moving on: (Now the long way around to a short point) The bum on the street has every right under free speech to yell whatever curse word he can come up with so long as it isn't directed at any one person, race or gender.


No he does not...it is called being a public nuisance. Not tolerated. Often called disturbing the peace. It is higly unlikely that I could go to town and begin screaming slurs at no one in particular for very long. His freedom of speech has turned into something entirely different. The local law enforcement would be along to handle.


I have just as every right to go to the public school football field and pray the Hail Mary as that bum on the street does to curse until his lungs run dry.



Again, not tolerated for the bum. As far as the Hail Mary's....did it, heard it at every ball game when I attended University of Maryland. But you know, ball games go hand in hand with loud boisterous people. For those that go overboard. usually the drunken fan, has now become a public nuicance and will be removed by stadium security. So you see, it is not just that simple to go galabanting around screaming slurs under the blanket coverage of freedom of speech.


I'm not going to pretend to be your babysitter and tell you where you should define your beliefs.

Well Hail Mary for that because your beliefs are skewed. According to you the bum is free to rant any slur he wishes at the top of his lung. In your view under the free speech announcment....this is ok. As I stated above, public nuicance and disturbing the peace. Yet, in the same breath, you said you can not blare your car radio at 0300 because it disturbes the peace. What, the bum is not disturbing the peace? As written by you:

What free speech also does NOT allow me to do is verbal/visual incitement of hatred/violence, sexual discrimination, harassment based on race, or cause a general disturbance of the peace by blaring my Death Metal music at full volume while in my car and driving around the neighborhood at 0300.

That is free speech.


The last sentence...'That is free speech.' Ah, are you sure you ment that?

You decide how you want to live, how you want to care for and raise your family, and how your family members will establish their lifestyle. Some decisions I may agree with, and some I may not. Yet, I have as much right to agree with you as I do to disagree with you and vice versa.


Sadly, I do not give one ioda on what you agree with me concerning my family or lifestyle. Since when is this communal living? I did not ask for your opinion on my decision for my family. You can agree or disagree all you like, has no bearing. Furthermore, your pandering on the bum screaming on the street as freedom of speech does not hold water with me. If this is how you plan on teaching your children that the bum screaming slurs at the top of his lungs is freedom of speech, good luck. I call it a public disturbance and I'm betting most others will if not all would agree. This is just a poor analogy.

[AVGWarhawk]

Current laws on public indecency, slander, and incitement to violence are pretty well covered right now (save for the fact that it's not quite catching up to the newer technology as fast as it should).

I'm sorry....good point and well taken. See, it is not all bad.

[Yahoshua]

Well no, I did not catch the sheer cynicism in the above quote. Can you point it out? Looks like a statement to me on how you feel about the Constitution. Perhaps in your mind the tone of the statement was cynical but I can not translate your tone with this statement in written form as being cynical.

I thought the smilies would give it away.


It goes much deep than this. Society has created a two check family to survive. Not many I know who have a stay at home mom like June Cleaver. Both parents are at work to make ends meet. So who is to blame really? The parents or the system to survive and provide? Next time you get a chance, check out college tuitions and let me know if Joe the car salesman can swing the 4 years. Likely not. With that said your next statement.....

Hmm, lets see. I'm already at a vocational school (have been for 13 months now) and so far I've been able to survive on about $700 a month (of my own money) and manage to live alone the whole time. The ONLY assistance I get from my parents is to help fill up the gas tank once every two weeks (for miles on the credit card) and the payments on the school loan I had to take out (about $150/mo.). The tuition is around 18k (not including armorers' courses which I've paid for myself).

And considering that community colleges have courses that are equal in credit grade to that of a big-name university, Joe-family can make life more manageable by taking courses at a community college or only doing part-time study (What an idea!!). A few other facts to consider is whether Joe-family is living in an apartment or a home (the cost differences are immense), and whether members of Joe-family are binge spenders or cost savers. There are so many factors to consider in this case that I'm not even going to bother pursuing it unless you're actually interested in doing so.

But to answer your initial question of "who is to blame," I'll ask another question: Who put them in that position: Themselves, or the society?


Ok, how you handle what your child sees....how can I control lug head forklift operator with a poor slogan on his shirt? You stated below...you can sit there and tolerate the bum with slurs but you can not control him. How then do you pin this on the parents? It is out there. Plain and simple.

How about explaining to your child that such words are bad and shouldn't be repeated? In addition to that, you can ask the person in question to stop (not that you or I have any real power to stop or control that person, short of invoking the law).

Yet, when one person raises an eyebrow on a indencent slogan on a shirt, all hell breaks loose. And it is the parents fault to boot. I do not have to tolerate the bum. The bum need not tolerate me. It is called abiding by the law and being civil. Being tolerate does not give the golden key to the crapper allowing anyone to do what they want with out recourse. Yet, if is the parents fault because according to you I need to steer clear of areas that might present such characters as the bum or lug head fork lift operator.

You're really stretching yourself out on a limb here so I'll try to clear this up for you, without sarcasm, cynicism, or satire so I can make sure you understand what I'm saying:

-This incident (referring to the article) was inappropriate (not to mention illegal) on behalf of the officers' activity. They overstepped their bounds (WAY out of bounds), and their actions are in no way justifiable whether or not you agree with whatever was printed on the shirt.

-I did not in any way blame "the parents" in regards to whatever Bum On A Street says or what Forklift Operator says. That's just irrational thinking.

-I never said that you had to "avoid those areas" (you seem to have a hard time understanding my writing style).

-Abiding by the law means that you sometimes have to tolerate opposing opinions, and sometimes tolerate opposing lifestyles. Civility has pretty much died in our society, so has politeness.

-If there's a law against behavior being exhibited by the bum (the law is NOT the same everywhere so I'm talking from the standpoint of Lakewood, Colorado) and you think the law is being broken, then by all means report it to the proper authorities. In my experience, LE will just give out a warning to the bum and do nothing, so they're not much help at all and there's nothing else I can do about it short of gagging and tying up the bum to get him to shutup.:damn:


Unfortunetly the crap is everywhere. It is a constant battle but I get the feeling here you do not know that feeling and probably will not until you own child is put in this situation. Do you have children? If not, how can you really comment with such conviction? If you do, perhaps then we can have conversation on your experiences with it. Until then, this is all conjecture on your part. .

I'm well aware that it's everywhere, and no I don't have my own children. My family and I however, have been helping our friend raise her children (she has 3 ages 16, 9, and I think 6 now). So I have a pretty good idea what you're talking about. My experience has merely been to politely ask the person in question to refrain from such language around the kids, and for the most part they willingly complied. But it doesn't mean I can threaten them with a $300 fine if they say the "F" word again.


At any rate, my point is why such an outrage because someone put the finger on the forklift guy because of his shirt? If all are to be tolerant, then forklift guy needs to be tolerant of those that find the shirt in poor taste. But again, everyone is on forklift guy side because his freedoms are being squelched and it is also a funny shirt. So this is OK. But, my freedom of not having to see such things is being squelched. It is a bad cycle and a lot of gray area.

Because the person in question in the article isn't breaking any laws (unless the council has managed to pass a law saying no printed shirts are allowed in public), whereas the police officer is overstepping their authority. If you don't like the shirt then ignore it or ask the guy to turn it inside out. It's that simple.

Making everything that appears offensive to you dissapear can be just as easily used against you as you can use it against the forklift operator. There is no law saying that forklift guy MUST listen to you and obey your command for him to turn his shirt inside out, and there's no law saying that he'll be prosecuted if he tells you to f*ck off.

Is this sort of situation civil? No, but forklift operator is as much in the right of law as you are. So there's nothing you can do about it but put up with it or leave by your own volition.


I have assumed nothing about you and would ask you to point out the assumption I have made. The only assumption about you was done in this post and it concerned children and if you have any.

Sorry, but I may have misunderstood your whole "hypodermic needle and drunk speeders on the freeway" spiel as implying that I approve of such behavior (I never mentioned either of these, you brought that into this).


No he does not...it is called being a public nuisance. Not tolerated. Often called disturbing the peace. It is higly unlikely that I could go to town and begin screaming slurs at no one in particular for very long. His freedom of speech has turned into something entirely different. The local law enforcement would be along to handle.

Do you live in a big city? If not, then come to Denver to see places like Aurora and Metro to see what can and cannot fly here. Bums can be quite entertaining in the crazy stuff they come up with and randomly yell out (I have yet seen one get picked up, but it must be how these people entertain themselves sometimes). Some of these people are (I believe) genuinely insane. But they can be as crazy as they like as long as they don't hurt anybody, sell themselves as prostitutes, deal in drugs, or loiter in one spot for a long time and the cops don't do anything about it (they really don't seem to care since it just means more paperwork for them to process).


Again, not tolerated for the bum. As far as the Hail Mary's....did it, heard it at every ball game when I attended University of Maryland. But you know, ball games go hand in hand with loud boisterous people. For those that go overboard. usually the drunken fan, has now become a public nuicance and will be removed by stadium security. So you see, it is not just that simple to go galabanting around screaming slurs under the blanket coverage of freedom of speech.

Then in this case, the rules have changed. What was permitted on private property before by the Stadium owners is now banned. Problem solved, less trouble for everyone else. If you'd like to take on the task of convincing the local LEOs' to actually enforce a municipal code, you're more than welcome to try. But when LEOs' won't do anything about it and couldn't really care any less, there's really not much I can do about it.


Well Hail Mary for that because your beliefs are skewed. According to you the bum is free to rant any slur he wishes at the top of his lung. In your view under the free speech announcment....this is ok. As I stated above, public nuicance and disturbing the peace. Yet, in the same breath, you said you can not blare your car radio at 0300 because it disturbes the peace. What, the bum is not disturbing the peace? As written by you:

That seems to be the rule of thumb around here. If the cops can get here in time while the music is still blaring from the apartment next door they'll ask the residents to stop (this is enforcement of noise ordinance for the City of Denver). But the bum on the street corner can yell whatever he wants, the LEOs' will just tell him to go somewhere else. Aparrently this is ok by the city LEOs' since "he isn't breaking the law" (but he is violating municipal ordnance).



The last sentence...'That is free speech.' Ah, are you sure you ment that?

Yes I did. And as AL already said, there are limits to what we can and cannot say but we are still considered as having limits to free speech (city ordinance, hate speech etc.).


Sadly, I do not give one ioda on what you agree with me concerning my family or lifestyle. Since when is this communal living? I did not ask for your opinion on my decision for my family.

Sorry for confusion, I was referring to decisions regarding lifestyle. You may not agree with mine, and I may not agree with yours.

You can agree or disagree all you like, has no bearing. Furthermore, your pandering on the bum screaming on the street as freedom of speech does not hold water with me.

Lets' see:

-Bum isn't breaking any laws
-Bum isn't harassing me or anyone else in particular
-Bum is in a public area just like I am

Yep he has the right to do that, but I never said I approved of it. Do I think the bum is an asshat? Yeah. But there's nothing I can do about it except ignore him or ask him to stop.

[Letum]

[/death by quotes]

[kiwi_2005]

Talking in code to the british govenment.

When ppl have their backs up against the wall what do they do about it?

The pots boiling over...

[P_Funk]

"give an inch, take a mile..."

I don't buy that. Thats the same thing that happens when they talk about communist infiltration of society. You can't start stepping on people's toes because you're afraid that someone might use our tolorance as a weapon against us. We lose our most indicative characteristic when we start to do that; Freedom.

I don't think that the line for free speech stops when someone is offended, otherwise we wouldn't be able to have public discussions of anything. This message board would be shut down. Free speech ends one when there is intent to cause public mischief or to incite some form of illegal activity or promote some kind of vilolence or rascism, and two when something is obviously and wholly obcene. This shirt didn't do that, oviously. If it offends then I say too bad, thats the risk you take when you commune with other people in a public environment. I can have a T-shirt that says "God is dead" and many many people wouldn't like that but I wouldn't be stopped.

If something is in bad taste or its just not popular, that doens't mean it is a slippery slope. I think that the purpose of laws are not just there to bind us but are there to be interpreted. It is our obligation as citizens of our respective nations to balance our justice and to be wary of when we begin to slide, but that doens't mean that we should be afraid to walk close to the edge. I definitely do not believe in anything other than a case by case basis for judging by law. Forget deturrence or precedents to others. This is about one man and his rights, even if they're his right to be stupidly witty. If you start to decide these things based on what you fear may happen then "right" might as well mean "priviledge", one that can be taken away based on the socio-political climate, and that is a world that I thought we were trying to avoid.

[AVGWarhawk]

Do you live in a big city? If not, then come to Denver to see places like Aurora and Metro to see what can and cannot fly here. Bums can be quite entertaining in the crazy stuff they come up with and randomly yell out (I have yet seen one get picked up, but it must be how these people entertain themselves sometimes). Some of these people are (I believe) genuinely insane. But they can be as crazy as they like as long as they don't hurt anybody, sell themselves as prostitutes, deal in drugs, or loiter in one spot for a long time and the cops don't do anything about it (they really don't seem to care since it just means more paperwork for them to process).


Yahosha,

I'm good with everything else you have written in your last post but the above quote is the thing that stands out. As fas as big city, I live in the outskirts of Baltimore...the murder capital of the world. But that has no bearing on my thoughts here from your post. Particularly the last the sentence. If problems like this go on for a time ignored by the authorities, then over that period of time it becomes the norm and should be accepted. At this point, once everyone believes this is fine, the authorities decide one day to clean it up, then it becomes a problem of curtailing freedoms of said bum or prostitute. Back to the t shirt, if there is an ordanance on the books for offensive slogans on t shirts but not enforced over a period of time (more paperwork) so this becomes the norm and accepted. Once the authorities take action it becomes a problem with freedom of speech.

At any rate, you are correct that anyone (law providing) can display what they want on a shirt as long as it does not incite hatred, discrimination etc. I was not attempting to advise you or anyone caring to join the discussion as wrong. Only attempting to stir up some discussion which you have done. One can only hope that said shirt wearer makes a good decision not to wear a poor in taste t shirt. As I stated in previous post, the shirt is not offensive to me and it is not funny either. It is just silly. Just wondering the outcry when the authorities cite the forklift guy. It makes no sense. Poor interpretation of the law by the law enforcement officer...more than likely. That issue to be handled in court if it makes it that far (probably will not).

Back to the bum,

-Bum isn't breaking any laws

One other issue I failed to mention on the bum. Loitering is also on the books. Therefore, if the bum is screaming at no one in particular, he is in essence disturbing the peace or being a public nuicance. If said bum is sitting around not saying much of nothing all day, he is now loitering. Also, a law rarely enforced. Therefore, I can conclude that the laws go largely ignored and eventually the general public believe what the bum is doing is the norm. But, as you stated and a bit deeper than paperwork, the cops have other things to do that a more pressing the contending with a bum. Quite frankly I would hope the cops would be looking after the more serious problems.



But there's nothing I can do about it except ignore him or ask him to stop.


Very true. Do you believe it should be that way?

[AVGWarhawk]

[/death by quotes]

Yeah man, but an interesting conversation nontheless!

[Yahoshua]

Yahosha,

I'm good with everything else you have written in your last post but the above quote is the thing that stands out. As fas as big city, I live in the outskirts of Baltimore...the murder capital of the world. But that has no bearing on my thoughts here from your post. Particularly the last the sentence. If problems like this go on for a time ignored by the authorities, then over that period of time it becomes the norm and should be accepted. At this point, once everyone believes this is fine, the authorities decide one day to clean it up, then it becomes a problem of curtailing freedoms of said bum or prostitute. Back to the t shirt, if there is an ordanance on the books for offensive slogans on t shirts but not enforced over a period of time (more paperwork) so this becomes the norm and accepted. Once the authorities take action it becomes a problem with freedom of speech.

At any rate, you are correct that anyone (law providing) can display what they want on a shirt as long as it does not incite hatred, discrimination etc. I was not attempting to advise you or anyone caring to join the discussion as wrong. Only attempting to stir up some discussion which you have done. One can only hope that said shirt wearer makes a good decision not to wear a poor in taste t shirt. As I stated in previous post, the shirt is not offensive to me and it is not funny either. It is just silly. Just wondering the outcry when the authorities cite the forklift guy. It makes no sense. Poor interpretation of the law by the law enforcement officer...more than likely. That issue to be handled in court if it makes it that far (probably will not).

The problem is well encapsulated in this post, but (as always) is still a bit more complex. Police fail to actively preserve the rule of law (they're cops, not lawyers) and are allowing things to get out of hand (or in this case overstep their authority). So when the law is again put back into force, the people object because they perceive it as unjust (which it is not, since it was already a law).

Then throwing in the aspect that most LEOs' don't have a clue what they're enforcing other than the most obvious of things (there's too many useless and repetitive laws on the books as it is) that municipal codes are either ignored by the LEOs' because they don't understand them, or they have "better things" to do.


Back to the bum,

-Bum isn't breaking any laws

One other issue I failed to mention on the bum. Loitering is also on the books. Therefore, if the bum is screaming at no one in particular, he is in essence disturbing the peace or being a public nuicance. If said bum is sitting around not saying much of nothing all day, he is now loitering. Also, a law rarely enforced. Therefore, I can conclude that the laws go largely ignored and eventually the general public believe what the bum is doing is the norm. But, as you stated and a bit deeper than paperwork, the cops have other things to do that a more pressing the contending with a bum. Quite frankly I would hope the cops would be looking after the more serious problems.

Sometimes (unfortunately) the LEOs' themselves are part of the problem by not enforcing the laws that should be enforced.





But there's nothing I can do about it except ignore him or ask him to stop.


Very true. Do you believe it should be that way?

In this particular case (my example from the standpoint of Lakewood, Colorado) the bum is breaking a municipality law, so no. The LEOs' are dropping the ball on this one.

[Yahoshua]

[/death by quotes]

Yeah man, but an interesting conversation nontheless!

We're trying to outperform Skybird-length posts.

[AVGWarhawk]

[/death by quotes]

Yeah man, but an interesting conversation nontheless!

We're trying to outperform Skybird-length posts.

I think we out did Skybird:up: Nice debate Yahoshua:rock:

[Yahoshua]

[/death by quotes]

Yeah man, but an interesting conversation nontheless!

We're trying to outperform Skybird-length posts.

I think we out did Skybird:up: Nice debate Yahoshua:rock:

Are you sure we outdid Skybird, maybe we should ask for his opinion on it.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/couchsmiley.gif