Group items tagged

I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.

This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?

This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.

if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.

haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .

I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.

I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,

I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.

I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen

I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.

I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.

I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.

agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.

This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.

I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about

I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change

I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.

When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.

Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.

If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.

I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.

I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.

I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.

Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.

Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.

I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions

This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.

him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.

The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.

I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.

I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.

I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.

I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways

Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.

I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.

The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.

I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.

I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.

I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.

I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.

I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.

I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.

Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.

With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No

That's crazy. A guy just went to help a girl and he gets shot? That is some scary stuff for sure

This is terrible... people are ridiculous these days

whats wrong with people these days? its crazy how you cant even be safe while walking to school.

I saw this last night! This is crazy

http://www.abc17news.com/news.php?id=4727 On December 29 a car crashes into garage, pushing the car in the garage into the home.

What is the point of doing that? You're hitting a person that did nothing wrong!

i dont get the point of that game

I don't understand what is the appeal of being hit so hard you become unconscious. its extremely dangerous what if you fall and snap your neck or crack your head open and start choking on your own blood because you cant roll over.