One of these might do the trick (it would work for me):
Posted on 12/14/2005 5:20:00 AM PST by TaxachusettsMan
OK.
" Nor does the First Amendment protect speech which is slanderous, libelous, seditious, incites violence, or endangers others ...
Leary's words were neither slanderous nor libelous, principally because they were not directed at any discrete individual and no individual could claim measurable reputational harm flowing from the words.
His words certainly aren't seditious (we aren't a theocracy, yet).
And by your own argument (in which you endorse the chilling of speech by threats of violence against the speaker), the only violence or endagerment Leary's speech seems to incite is Leary's own physical harm at the hands of a theocratic zealot.
Moreover the right to regulate speech, such as that in question here, has historically been exercised by the states.
You wouldn't happen to have some examples of these remarkable state "speech" laws, would you?
Leary's speech "chills" Catholic religious expression.
Really? How?
Around the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the crown of thorns. Sometimes Mary's heart is shown with thorns too but usually it is shown pierced by a sword (or 7 swords showing her seven sorrows) as foretold by Simeon at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple.
Thanks very much. It didn't look like thorns in that picture, so I would not have guessed. I appreciate the explanation.
What's unspoken here is that these are the real issues behind the attacks on the Catholic Church. The culture which doesn't know right from wrong, liberty from license, is also the culture which supports abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell mutilation.
Ridiculing Catholic beliefs with regard to the Virgin Birth, etc. (which is hardly an intellectually honest discussion of why they might be held) is meant to discredit Catholic positions on these "personal freedom" issues as well (conveniently short-circuiting any intellectually honest discussion of the reasoning behind them). In other words, the idea is that the Catholic faith is so loopy, that Catholic moral positions (which have political implications) must be loopy as well.
I noticed, for example, that Reason, the libertarian rag, through a fit when John Paul II, of blessed memory, promulgated Fides et Ratio, since in their view faith is always unreasonable. But the premises of any logical system are always accepted "on faith", making Reason's position quite unreasonable.
I just explained. If you can't understand plain English, there's no point in attempting to communicate with you.
Certainly. As short a time ago as the 1950's many states - Maryland comes to mind - had a board of censorship, because it was recognized that the state had an interest in preversing the public morals.
Sorry I didn't see that question. Our Lord's heart is circled by a crown of thorns, Our Lady's heart is circled with roses, and is pierced by a sword.
Oh, I see. Your objection is to the broadcast of Leary's words in a publically available venue, not to the individual right of Leary to actually speak the words. Correct?
Of course, I'm still having trouble with your notion that Leary's words were somehow subject to constitutional exception.
Just as blacks don't have to watch minstrel shows? This is slander of a sort that is not tolerated when its objects are blacks, Jews or homosexuals or other privileged " minorties."
What's your problem? I personally don't care what Denis Leary is up to, but that doesn't entitle me to be a complete jackass to other people. You seem to think it does. People have the right to be pissed off, especially when their family is ridiculed. Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary is their mother. What if somebody were making money by making fun of your mother?
"What if somebody were making money by making fun of your mother?"
As her legal heir, I'd hit 'em up for a cut of the loot.
Well, technically, it's not slander. No reputational harm to any individual that can be measured or remedied.
But I'm curious. What is your proposed solution? Countering Leary's routine with other speech, or something else?
Just like I don't have to watch old Westerns that portray all American Indians as one-dimensional bloodthirsty maniacs.
Bill Donohue, being spurned by the complete LACK of pop from his attempt to slap South Park, is now AGAIN trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame....
Jerk. Lighten up *just* a bit.
Bump to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.