(08-26-2014 03:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: JH,
You have chosen one interpretation of the person, Marine has chosen another. Neither is demonstrably correct or incorrect... both are possible. While you honestly don't see claims that she sought to enforce her opinion, obviously SOMEBODY put enough pressure on the business owner to make them back away from what is an extremely popular meme (that bacon is delicious and goes with everything). So either interpretation is possible.
I haven't chosen any interpretation. I don't have to. To quote the great Bill Murray, "It just doesn't matter."
Even if she was demanding the government step in and force the removal of the sign, something that there is no evidence of in any of the brief excerpts I have read, her statement is still fully protected by the First Amendment.
Quote:The entire concept of 'offense' means that your expression has violated my rights... otherwise nobody would have ever needed to say that you don't have the right to not be offended.
This is untrue. You can't simply make up definitions that don't correspond with reality. Here's an article (one of many) talking about offensive ads--no mention of rights at all. These ads were quickly pulled because they were offensive, not because they violated anyone's rights.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-excha...52385.html
Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. Rights come in to play when determining whether you can legally do something. Sensibilities (and offense) come in when deciding whether you should. But even if somebody shouldn't have done something they did, there's not much you can do about it because you don't have a right not to be offended.
Quote:Obviously SOME people believe that. Under Marine's assumption, I agree with his characterization that the belief has no place in this country, but is entirely appropriate in others. If that is her goal, she should go elsewhere. I don't think you disagree with this... you only disagree that this was her intent. If you accept Marine's hypothesis, the comment isn't the problem you seem to think it is.
No, even if her goal is the absolute suppression of any speech she finds offensive, she is still free to stay. The proper response to bad speech is more speech, not the suppression of speech. If you think her complaint is stupid (it is), and you feel the need to weigh in on a sign controversy in a town you will probably never visit (you probably shouldn't), then by all means go for it. But she is still entitled to voice her opinion.
Quote:The ACLU doesn't agree with the KKKs position, but they agree with their right to express it. This lady may or may not. If she does, fine. If not, then it's a problem.
No, it's not. The desirable scope of the First Amendment is certainly open for debate. Just as every other aspect of the Constitution, or any other part of our government, is.
Tell me, what should be done to the people who try to prevent the KKK from marching through their town? Or what about Albert Phelps, who tried to punish the Westboro Baptist Church for their constitutionally protected expressions? Are they also un-American? I certainly don't think so.
Quote:As I said, because the woman isn't quoted as saying that she finds bacon to be filthy (a counter to the statement that the restaurant owner made) but instead argues that she is offended by the restaurant owner's statement (according to the article)... she is not merely disagreeing with the position, but instead arguing that the statement 'injures' her to some degree. That is not at all the same thing as your KKK analogy. The ACLU does not argue that their sensibilities are 'injured' by the KKK. NOW we're only discussing whether that injury is protected or not somehow (which IS a Constitutional question)... and not whether or not she is actually injured (if not, then not a Constitutional question)
No, because they value free speech, the ACLU represents the KKK against people who are also offended by the KKK. It wouldn't make sense for them to argue that the KKK is offensive, although I suspect that they admit it during their opening and closing arguments, they people they are suing on behalf of the KKK are the ones claiming injury. And there was no analogy. The ACLU's representation of the KKK was an example of a group advocating to allow expressions they find offensive.
Quote:That is precisely my point. Have an opinion about the issue (whether or not pork is good or the kkk is right) and not about whether someone else's opinion 'injures' you (or your sensibilities).
So there is nothing that anyone could ever say to you (or your family) that would offend you? I find that very hard to believe.
Simply telling people not to be offended is senseless. It's asking them to do the impossible. Most people, however, recognize that one of the costs of living in a free society is that, on occasion, you will be offended and are more than willing to make that trade. And sometimes people need to be reminded of that tradeoff.