- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,735
- Reaction score
- 32,385
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I can agree in today's world it was not the best time to post such comments on facebook.
However, since the lol, etc was added at the end and taking the post in context, is was sarcasim.
It is a shame the US has evolved to the point it is in. A few bad apples makes everyone a suspect.
I for one am tired of the political correctness and having to watch what you say because you may offend someone, or what you say is taken as a literal threat.
LE should have talked to the teens and parents. End of case.
Yep, we are also a country of its always someone elses fault.
Exactly. There have been cases where people have made threats online and carried out those threats, but they were initially ignored because people assumed they were joking or being sarcastic and they didn't want to "take it too seriously". The guy probably should not have been arrested, but taking his comment seriously and investigating it is not out of line.
Posting "lol" after such a comment could just as easily indicate psychopathy as it could indicate sarcasm. The problem is that you're looking at this from the perspective of knowing that the guy wasn't serious. If the guy had been serious, we'd be looking at the same post and saying, "what a psychopath. I can't believe he laughed about it."
I think the addition of eating their still beating hearts pushed this into the realm of "obvious satire".
Fair enough. I just wanted to comment on other potential meanings for "lol" and other seeming signals of non-malicious intentions.I never said LE should not investigate. It seems that if they did a proper one, it was clear the teenager had no criminal intent.
I've always been opposed to restrictions on free speech simply because the speech either offends someone, or carries the possibility of harm.
For example:
Sexual harassment; as the video report provided in post #2 states, has been determined to be whatever someone who feels "offended" considers offensive. This leads to some really drastic outcomes. Case in point, I attended a recent "training session" where one example used was a man who had a picture of his wife and kids at the beach, where the wife was wearing a bikini. If a female co-worker passing his desk was offended, he would be required to remove the photo and face a counseling session on sexual harassment.
Offensive speech: I've personally experienced the kind of reaction shown on college campuses where radicals think only their speech should be protected. After leaving the Army I attended a university to get a graduate degree, and was elected to the student government as a graduate senator. A group called "Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador" [CISPES] held a peace conference. I attended as a visitor, not a speaker, but was asked my opinion of the low turnout for the event by a local newspaper. I merely stated that I thought it would have attracted more notice if the program included more controversy through debates between opposing viewpoints. CISPES immediately reacted by trying to get me impeached. When that failed they would come to senate meetings and disrupt them whenever I spoke, then tried to impede my re-election by disrupting public debates I had with my opponents. (I actually got re-elected by the highest vote for the position in 15 years.) :lol:
I've always felt that words only have the power that each person gives to them. Take the word “nigger;” when a White uses it toward a Black it is “hate speech” and grants the Black the right to strike back with near-impunity due to “incitement.” However, the same word used by a Black against another Black in a violent beat-down…perfectly okay even though it is being used to denigrate the person being beaten.
You cannot shield people from ideas, nor prevent or even inhibit evil thoughts or deeds by stifling free speech rights. The ideas will simply go underground and people with evil intent will still act regardless. But by allowing laws that limit expression due to offense or fear of the mere possibility of harm, you are only serving to severely restrict your own freedom.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you say. It is merely the freedom to say it.
True, but why make so much speech "illegal" simply because it offends or holds the mere possibility (not probability) of harm?
I didn't say anything about making speech illegal or limiting it any way. You have me confused with someone else.
We're talking about Texas here. I wouldn't live in Texas because it seems the insane is running the asylum in that state.
True, but why make so much speech "illegal" simply because it offends or holds the mere possibility (not probability) of harm?
To be successfully sued for sexual harassment in the workplace it needs to be proven that the speech and/or behavior created a hostile work environment for the co-worker by reasonable standards.
Did you watch the video I posted? It only requires that the person "thinks" it is. All they have to do is say that they are offended and BAM, you're being successfully sued. Examples were given in the video.
To be successfully sued for sexual harassment in the workplace it needs to be proven that the speech and/or behavior created a hostile work environment for the co-worker by reasonable standards. I susepct that you might disagree with the outcome of certain specific cases, but I think you would have to agree that is possible for speech based harassment to happen. If you worked at a job where all your co-workers and supervisors were black and constantly seriously suggested that stupid white honkies should be deported or killed and made jokes about how they would enjoy raping you, wouldn't that constitute actionable harassment?
1. The problem is a suit, successful or not, still costs a business time and money as well as bad press. To prevent even a threat of that, they act internally. Watch that video on post #2...listen to then CEO and NOW Mayor of NYC Bloomberg say he would fire a person rather than get sued. Listen to the "paid consultant" say it is determined by the person who feels offended. Read my post explaining what we were recently taught regarding a picture of a man's wife and kids on a beach...
It does not matter if there is real grounds for a suit, the employers don't want to deal with the problem. 2. Besides, you are talking about a hostile work environment in your scenario. Different kettle of fish, and if there were no regulations the boss could just fire people until he got a group who could work together without that kind of grief. Nothing to do with racism, just workplace cooperation.
As long as the consequence are: ignoring you, avoiding you, or debating you, no problem.
But if the consequences include criminal punishment because others think you have offended them (ex. "sexual harassment" law) or may possibly commit harm (i.e. publish a book someone might use as a guide to blow people up), no way.
Nor if the consequences include assaulting you, battering you, or any other violent response, again, no way.
After all, no one has to listen to you, read your work, or watch your movie. They can just move on....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?