|
Teflon Don posted:I was going to apply to be a guard at PP here this spring You should still do this because odds are you'll be in no danger and you'll be providing security for people who are being actively harassed and having their rights suppressed
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:07
|
|
Nevermind then...
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:I guess it could be, but if the cost were that other progressive goals had to be put on hold for two or three decades while the electorate works through the temper tantrum of not being able to own guns, I don't think it would be worth it. And at any rate, it would be preferable to have a nation that wasn't full of racists and bigots. So presumably calling cops murders would be banned speech too? (Unless convicted obviously) See the problem here? (Hint: the correct solution is not "but cops really are murderers" because that's what the anti-abortion activist would say about the doctors)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:You should still do this because odds are you'll be in no danger and you'll be providing security for people who are being actively harassed and having their rights suppressed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siwpn14IE7E
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Unfortunately I can't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So presumably calling cops murders would be banned speech too? (Unless convicted obviously) Aren't you guys still talking about the media? I don't get the gently caress The Police channel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So presumably calling cops murders would be banned speech too? (Unless convicted obviously) That said, to answer your question, no I wouldn't assert that calling cops murderers because the nature of the job of being a police officer necessarily makes all of them murderers, should be protected speech for broadcast media. If anybody is doing that. And on the flip side of that, if we start to notice an epidemic of apparently racially-motivated murders of pregnant women by abortion doctors as the victims enter their clinics, then I suppose calling abortion doctors murderers would be all right. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Just wear a black turtleneck and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Teflon Don posted:I was going to apply to be a guard at PP here this spring gently caress that. You'll be protecting women (and their providers) that are very possibly having a real bad day from assholes that want to infringe upon their legal right to medical treatment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:So, Hillary is the only presidential candidate who's seem to have said (Tweeted) anything about the PP shooting. Is the silence from others normal or is it odd nobody else has commented yet? Bernie also already responded Past that, it is MOM who doesn't want to touch the issue, and the GOP, who are a-ok with bad things happening to PP
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
moller posted:Aren't you guys still talking about the media? I don't get the gently caress The Police channel. I wish the pirate radio station that played non-stop Geto Boys hadn't been shut down. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
This is pretty cut-and-dry a terrorist attack, right? Like there's no way this wasn't intended to scare women out of going to Planned Parenthood. Not just the Colorado Springs PP, but any of them. I've gotta refill my birth control prescription next month and you'd best believe I'm gonna be thinking about this the whole time I'm in the waiting room, even though I know the odds are minuscule of it happening again while I'm there. So I guess he won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
No , it's not exactly cut in dry. Planned Parenthood also has programs for domestic violence so this could be a ex-boyfriend/ stalker scenario. It's unlikely though and this is probably most certainly related to the propaganda against PP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Could be a robbery gone bad. Shooter heard something about PP selling fetus parts and thought they had a lot of cash on hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:This is pretty cut-and-dry a terrorist attack, right? Like there's no way this wasn't intended to scare women out of going to Planned Parenthood. Not just the Colorado Springs PP, but any of them. I've gotta refill my birth control prescription next month and you'd best believe I'm gonna be thinking about this the whole time I'm in the waiting room, even though I know the odds are minuscule of it happening again while I'm there. So I guess he won. As was pointed out earlier, he's white so not terrorism sorry! Really though I can't imagine that feeling. How does one get into the business of volunteer PP escort? I'm not small, chill as hell, and get my 40hrs in 3-4 days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:As was pointed out earlier, he's white so not terrorism sorry! Come see my thread about escorting over in A/T.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
I'm over here waiting for a tweet from Trump about how none of this would have happened if abortionists would just carry loaded firearms with them at all times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:You should still do this because odds are you'll be in no danger and you'll be providing security for people who are being actively harassed and having their rights suppressed They have a right to protest
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:They have a right to protest Yeah, but that doesn't mean the people going in for medical services should be hassled, insulted, or threatened with no protection. Escorts don't punch protestors out of the way, they're just there to shield patients from harassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:They have a right to protest They have a right to protest, and women have a right to walk into a medical facility without fear of being screamed at, physically blocked, followed to vehicles, or shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:They have a right to protest I have a right to tell you to gently caress off for not knowing the difference between protesting and harassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:I have a right to tell you to gently caress off for not knowing the difference between protesting and harassment. Thats your opinion
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Thats your opinion He's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I feel like this current SCOTUS would side with the idea that advertising=speech. I wouldn't be so sure. Being able to keep your kids from hearing things you don't like is pretty popular in the right wing. Doctors in the U.S. are hopeful that we can ban junk food ads aimed at children as the results via-a-vi childhood obesity have been good in other countries: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483979/ quote:For example, until the age of 7 or 8 years, children do not have the cognitive capacity to recognize the persuasive intent of advertising required for the first condition.86 Because they view advertising as simply another source of information and cannot understand that this information might be biased, any advertising targeted toward young children is likely to be misleading and thus not protected by the First Amendment. You don't really grok how poisonous advertising junk food aimed at kids is till you go someplace where it's been outlawed. Edit: ahh nuts that was supposed to be anew post not an edit, boooo phones. But synopsis of original post, we can crack down on lying liars who lie a lot quite a bit in the U.S. without endangering free political speech. Bans on advertising junk food to kids and sharp toothed anti-slander laws being things that exist in modern, healthy, democracies. McAlister fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
I feel like this current SCOTUS would side with the idea that advertising=speech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:They have a right to protest Funny how manner, time, and place restrictions never seem to be constitutional when applied to protesting reproductive rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
The right wing seems pretty convinced that a captive audience is essential to freedom of speech/assembly; see also every time Ben Shapiro or whoever it is tries to speak at a college campus and students don't attend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
ExplodingChef posted:gently caress that. You'll be protecting women (and their providers) that are very possibly having a real bad day from assholes that want to infringe upon their legal right to medical treatment. What the hell, I filed for a position a minute ago, now let's see if they respond.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Wasn't this the kid who faked the screenshot of the official White House twitter blocking him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
There used to be a policy the media were required to follow called the Fairness Doctrine. It was abolished during the Reagan administration, which allowed the Rush Limbaughs, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdochs, and Chuck Johnsons to proliferate print, radio and TV media with only one viewpoint on controversial issues. The FCC bringing that back would effectively put Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck out of business. Is it going to end violence in America? No, but there will be less fueling unstable people's minds with vitriolic bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:There used to be a policy the media were required to follow called the Fairness Doctrine. It was abolished during the Reagan administration, which allowed the Rush Limbaughs, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdochs, and Chuck Johnsons to proliferate print, radio and TV media with only one viewpoint on controversial issues. The FCC bringing that back would effectively put Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck out of business. SpiderHyphenMan posted:Yo Kilroy as a guy so frothing liberal I was sympathizing with Noam Chomsky (the poster, not the scientist) in the thread yesterday, holy poo poo you do not know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Bans on advertising junk food to kids and sharp toothed anti-slander laws being things that exist in modern, healthy, democracies. I don't think we necessarily want to beef up our slander laws, of all things. Look at the ridiculous stuff that goes on over in the various Britpol related threads, where posters are reluctant to post certain pieces of information. That sort of law is much more easily wielded by the elite against the powerless than vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
What is this, like the 3rd "conservative wunderkid" to renounce conservatism/gop?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:There used to be a policy the media were required to follow called the Fairness Doctrine. It was abolished during the Reagan administration, which allowed the Rush Limbaughs, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdochs, and Chuck Johnsons to proliferate print, radio and TV media with only one viewpoint on controversial issues. The FCC bringing that back would effectively put Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck out of business. No, probably not. If anything it would hit places like MSNBC worse since Fox already has a "genuine liberal opinion" on there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:What is this, like the 3rd "conservative wunderkid" to renounce conservatism/gop? Yeah, but you never hear about the children who stop maturing and remain Republicans for the rest of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I feel like this current SCOTUS would side with the idea that advertising=speech. It would. I really hope that we hold off on banning drug advertising until one of the conservative justices leaves and is replaced by someone less likely to take us back to the Lochner era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, probably not. If anything it would hit places like MSNBC worse since Fox already has a "genuine liberal opinion" on there. What happened to the guy that used to share Hannity's show anyways? Colmes I think his name was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, probably not. If anything it would hit places like MSNBC worse since Fox already has a "genuine liberal opinion" on there. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough. SirKibbles posted:What happened to the guy that used to share Hannity's show anyways? Colmes I think his name was. He mostly sat mute and occasionally offered a word or two that more supported than offered counterpoint to Hannity's diatribe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:There used to be a policy the media were required to follow called the Fairness Doctrine. It was abolished during the Reagan administration, which allowed the Rush Limbaughs, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdochs, and Chuck Johnsons to proliferate print, radio and TV media with only one viewpoint on controversial issues. The FCC bringing that back would effectively put Fox News, Breitbart, and Glenn Beck out of business. Can we just get a rule that requires each news company provide time to Shep Smith? He's dreamy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2KBfynW09I 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:MSNBC has Joe Scarborough. Not an accurate representation of modern conservatives, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
SirKibbles posted:What happened to the guy that used to share Hannity's show anyways? Colmes I think his name was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:28
|
|