Bookem wrote:
Yeah try sitting in the front row of Courtney's comedy club in Moorhead, bet there's a bit of name calling

Try getting on stage when the sandman is there......LOTS of humiliating antics take place.....trust me

If you go see a live comic be prepared to get walked on. Maybe I should go and do the same thing sue comics for making a living. :rolleyes:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” This
language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied
literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to
all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local
government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some
types of speech and only limited protection to others.

This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First
Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of
freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for
some types of speech. For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment
provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes
“advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action.”

The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full
protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be
harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’
speech. Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may
be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are
content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and
leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” And, even speech that
enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the basis
of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny,” i.e., if the government shows
that the restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least
restrictive means to further the articulated interest.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

tjamz wrote:
Not true. That would be like saying that states can say they won't let women vote, or that their citizens cannot own guns, or that there can only be state run newspapers. Or even that ND could say, ok, from this point forward the only recognized religion is Hindu, anyone found to be following a different faith shall be tried on treason charges.

Sorry StangerBanger, you are wrong on your assumption above.

No actually what I said is true Chuck. All the things you just listed are covered under separate portions of the Constitution regarding the fact that the Federal Government has supremacy over the States in cases that come down to state vs. federal. We talked about this several times in Govn't class.

It's also obvious that there is a certain amount of state control over issues like gun control and such. Some states require extensive background checks and holding periods to purchase guns, some don't, some have no CC laws and others hand out CC permits to anyone without a criminal record. States have to follow certain rules to remain a State and in doing so have to follow regulations put forth by the Federal government, but otherwise they COULD, restrict speech. Most, if not all (i'd assume), have state constitutions/bills of rights that cover freedom of speech though, and obviously renders this argument between me and you useless. Alls I was trying to say is that the 1st Amendment and really everything in the Bill of Rights, applies to the Federal government. I could ask my gov teacher to give me a more detailed explanation as he used to be a lawyer/lobbiest for several years and knows the laws and such like the back of his hand. I do know we covered this topic fairly in depth in class though, I just am probably leaving out some small but important details.

Turbo5Oh wrote:
i take offese to that comment. by you as a white person saying u are gonna "go beat the wife and kids" racial profiles all whites as wife and kids beaters
i have consulted my lawyer and we are sueing u and ur group of "veritas" wife and kid beaters

im gonna be rich!!!

im indian, havent you white devils done enough to me already?

and wes, your right, nothing makes you feel more like a man then beating your wife and children after a long hard day at the office.

StangerBanger96 wrote:
Like Ami and Tjamz already pointed out, only Congress can't limit speech. State governments that don't have some freedom of speech clause in their state constitutions/bill of rights can pass any restriction on speech they please, as well as private institutions and such. Freedom of speech doesn't exist the way people make it out to exist.

Not true. That would be like saying that states can say they won't let women vote, or that their citizens cannot own guns, or that there can only be state run newspapers. Or even that ND could say, ok, from this point forward the only recognized religion is Hindu, anyone found to be following a different faith shall be tried on treason charges.

Sorry StangerBanger, you are wrong on your assumption above.

DaveH wrote:
StangerBanger96, you need more shit in your sig file.

:icon_rr:
I usually add more on Tuesdays and Thursdays when im @ work for 6 hours straight and have nothing to do after the first 30 minutes of work

:icon_rr:

amicheze wrote:
RANDOM FACT: there really is no such thing as "freedom of speech." theres nothing in the constitution that says "people can say whatever they want." all it says is that congress cant pass anything that limits what people can and cant say. i bet most people dont know that.

random fact aside, thats just stupid. the guys called him more different racial names than he did them. people will whine and bitch about anything to get free money. its sad.

First amendment:

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

[SIZE=2]And no, they should not get a penny. If they are going to sue someone for calling someone else a "n@gger" then they need to sue the entire rap industry, starting with the black rap artists.
[/SIZE]

weshole wrote:
I thinks it's complete and utter bullshit that they think they should get money because of what he said.

FUCK!!! what a crock. It makes me very angry that I seen that video. Oh well, I'm gonna go beat the wife and kids. That'll make things better.

i take offese to that comment. by you as a white person saying u are gonna "go beat the wife and kids" racial profiles all whites as wife and kids beaters
i have consulted my lawyer and we are sueing u and ur group of "veritas" wife and kid beaters

im gonna be rich!!!

random fact aside, thats just stupid. the guys called him more different racial names than he did them. people will whine and bitch about anything to get free money. its sad.

FUCK!!! what a crock. It makes me very angry that I seen that video. Oh well, I'm gonna go beat the wife and kids. That'll make things better.

2wheeler wrote:
Yes, that's the original video.......what's your comment?

What he said was terrible, and I can't believe anyone would say that, let alone someone performing in a comedy club(I do not condone their language back at him either, but he was more deserving of it, but it still wasn't right). BUT, I don't think that money is needed in this issue. Maybe a better apology....I thought his apology was kind of shitty...

it basicaly a group of rude people that disrupted his performance and he got upset, when u go to a movie do u show up late with a huge group of laud people and not expect somebody to say something about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q8LxO4wnCQ
has a white person ever tried to sue a black comedian for what he says?
im tired of hearing about all this racist bullshit! its goes both ways but u only hear one side bitching about it

lord_deastofact wrote:
origonally it was asked if there should be limits on speech and there already are, they are built into the framework. other then that I just think that situation is messed up and he was out of line on stage... but thats me...
So you think they should get paid? You still haven't made your stance on the issue clear to me.