Cartoon causes JCS complaints

[Lone_Gunman]

While it does take a quart or more of saliva to transmit the aids virus

It would take considerably less saliva to transmit HIV is the saliva contained a little blood, as in someone with gingivitis.

 

[NineseveN]

The spitting is an insult, and contrived to provoke a violent response. It is not an attempt to inflict bodily harm -- and in earlier, less politically correct times, only the attempt or threat of bodily harm was an assault.

"Offensive physical contact"...did the cartoon somehow contact you? Offensive contact is not the same as being offended by a cartoon, which was the original point. First Amendment, say it with me now...

Being assaulted is not the same as being insulted.

 

[NineseveN]

It would take considerably less saliva to transmit HIV is the saliva contained a little blood, as in someone with gingivitis.

Tuberculosis bacteria (tubercle IIRC) can survive in saliva for something like 24 hours.

 

[feedthehogs]

Pax nailed it.

You betcha.

Funny how the far left and right have basically the same mindset in following their party blindly and they can do no wrong.

Thinking for yourself has become a lost art.

 

[DRZinn]

No. It's assault because it is insulting, offensive and a provocation to violence.

So if I say your mother <fornicates with> goats, is that assault? NO. Quite insulting, I'd bet, but it's not assault.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"Offensive physical contact"...did the cartoon somehow contact you? Offensive contact is not the same as being offended by a cartoon, which was the original point. First Amendment, say it with me now...

Being assaulted is not the same as being insulted.

Once again we see the classic liberal argument "If you don't agree with me, you're violating my First Amendment rights."

READ the First Amendment. I have as much right to hold my opinions as you have.

Toles has a Constitutional right to publish his cartoon. I have a constitutional right to say what I think about it and him.

 

[Mr. James]

If one more poster trots out the First Amendment I'm gonna start hurling some offensive language of my own.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment for private citizens, banging earnestly at their keyboards, to suggest that Tom Toles needs a good public caning for general mopery.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment for private citizens to write to Tom Toles and suggest he perform unnatural and physically taxing sexual acts.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment for private citizens to cancel their subscriptions to the Post, write splenetic, foam-flecked letters to the editor, circulate petitions calling for the public caning of Tom Toles, or other acts of outrage.

All together, class:

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

 

[Mr. James]

Vern,

Our posts crossed - obviously, I agree with what you said - and you said it better!

 

[pcf]

Off subject for a moment: In the Kelo case we developed a further disdained for 5 justices of the Supreme Court. Five individuals that were too weak and immoral to do what was right. Rather than stand up for what was right, they flowed with the current of their political ideology and causes that support it. I pretty sure I know how people feel about the 5 individuals and their beliefs.

Weak people will latch on to anything that supports their cause, even when it flies in the face of decency and morality. A pictures worth a thousand words, but no matter how well a picture of a limbless soldier can replace a thousand or ten thousand words, it's wrong. It was wrong for Tom Toles to draw it, it's wrong for the Washington Post to publish it, and if it use it to support your arguement, you're wrong.

There are things that decent people don't do. They don't spit in other people's faces or poke them in chest, not because of a law book, but because it's disrespectful and impolite. (I don't what to tell you if you need to play semantics) They do not ridicule or look down on those that are weaker than they are. A MAN, a WOMAN... a decent person, will have the morality and mental power to say that something is wrong and speak against it, even if it supports their cause, no matter how well it does it.

The world is a reflection of the people that live in it, if one cannot hold themselves to basic levels of morality and decency. How can they expect other people, businesses and the government to?

 

[NineseveN]

Once again we see the classic liberal argument "If you don't agree with me, you're violating my First Amendment rights."

READ the First Amendment. I have as much right to hold my opinions as you have.

Toles has a Constitutional right to publish his cartoon. I have a constitutional right to say what I think about it and him.

First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Second of all, I did not once you anything about anyone's 1A rights being violated. The cartoonist is simply exercising his First Amendment Rights, which you are also doing by criticizing this particular exercise. It's nice to have freedom. For you to simply dismiss it as me trying to tell you that you are violating the Bill of Rights is cheesy and a rather clumsy way of making an argument.


You: That cartoon is wrong
Me: Well, he's just exercising his rights under the First Amendment
You: Read the amendment, I am not violating his rights
Me: Um yeah, okay, did I say that?


You first said:

It's a calculated, deliberate insult

Others, Pax most notably stopped by and explained political satire to you. It is supposed to be provocative and even offensive on the surface, that's part of the point.

And I say anyone who thinks wounded soldiers are suitable subjects for cartoons is beyond contempt.

To make the point, the cartoonist chose to use that vehicle. Poor taste? That's up for debate. A lot of things are beyond contempt to different people, that's just the way a free society works.

And explain how that makes it okay to hold the wounded up to ridicule in this manner.

Metaphor. Again, poor taste, perhaps.



C_yeager then said:

It amazes me how very annoying most conservatives seem to find the first ammendment.

Which you responded with:

It amazes me how liberals always take the position that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow "violating their first amendment rights."

He did not say anyone was violating anything, only that in his opinion, conservatives often find the amendment annoying when it allows speech they are not fond of or dislike. Nothing in there about violating, only that the unmitigated expression of free speech can be an annoyance to that particular group. Where as I don't like the cartoon, but that's my personal taste and I won't get all bent out of shape like you have simply because I personally feel the subject matter is beyond contempt.


You then went into some discussions about the military...and then into the whole "liberals are going to take our guns away simply by having a liberal president in 2008" fear cry, which is sheer nonsense as it would require much more than that alone to do it.


Joab then said:

The cartoon is meant to be political satire not necessarily humor.
Political cartoons are meant to evoke outrage,

You responded with:

So is spitting in a man's face -- but I don't recommend the practice

Joab correctly responded with:

Since when is physical assault an accepted form of political expression. and how does drawing a cartoon equate with that

You responded

Neither one causes physical harm -- spitting in one's face is assault ONLY because it is so insulting.

You tried to equate spitting in someone's face with a political satire piece in the form of a black and white cartoon. You were provided the legal definitions and explanations as to why one is assault, one is simply offensive and there is no way to equate the two other than they are offensive (which is not why spitting on someone is considered assault, as was shown).

Nowhere in there, through the relevant course of this topic did anyone say you were violating anything, only that the cartoonist is exercising his rights to free speech, and we find it amazing that you find that so annoying when you disagree with the subject matter or the icon used to convey the point, or do you hate all political satire and/or offensive material?

if your point is simply to say you find this offensive and you offer no recourse against it or proposed plan to combat such a cartoon and those like it, what exactly is your point for your continued posting? Do you have an agenda or are you just venting a little bit as this topic upsets you?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Geeze, someone is worked up.

I do have a plan and have implemented it -- to contact the advertisers to the Washington Post to complain.

They will, of course, say they have no control over what the Post prints. In anticipation of that I point out that if the advertising vehicle makes customers mad, that's advertising money wasted.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Off subject for a moment...

Excellent. Thank you.

And I have one thing to say to the "elect a Democrat, throw the country into gridlock" folks. While having the county in political gridlock was IMO desirable years ago, it isn't today. Why? I'll give you three reasons:

One, like it or not, we are at War and the gridlock would add more garbage to the trash we are wading through.

Two, look around you. Look at the NGO's. Look at Moveon.org. Look at Emily's list. Look at the UN. and remember John F. Kerry's "global test" remark. The elites want to rule you while DENYING you your vote and voice. It is easier for them (since they can't get their socialist and communist programs through the processes of our Consitution) to get and hold POWER.

How would a Democrat President do that? Through innocuous sounding treatys (which will be glossed over by his/her allies in the MSM). Then if you don't like something, you will have to go to Brussels to get a change... Or the change could come through the Useless Nitwits in New York. "Oh, we have to go along with world consensus...."

Be careful of what you wish for, and look past Washington to see where the elites want to take us..

 

[NineseveN]

Geeze, someone is worked up.

I do have a plan and have implemented it -- to contact the advertisers to the Washington Post to complain.

They will, of course, say they have no control over what the Post prints. In anticipation of that I point out that if the advertising vehicle makes customers mad, that's advertising money wasted.

Worked up? You got the wrong melon my friend.

Good plan, except they'll have to weigh your complaints against those that are in support of the particular cartoon or are not impacted by it. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

 

[carlrodd]

i think vern has simply been trying to get his post count up.......cunning ruse vern

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Worked up? You got the wrong melon my friend.

I didn't notice -- you must have had your hat on.

Good plan, except they'll have to weigh your complaints against those that are in support of the particular cartoon or are not impacted by it. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

I'm not alone.

 

[David W. Gay]

i think vern has simply been trying to get his post count up...

Aren't we all??


(75 and counting...)

 

[NineseveN]

Aren't we all??


(75 and counting...)

Good point.