Group items tagged

Good story

I wouldn't apologize either, i think she's doing the right thing.

Personally, I don't think he should be forced to apologize. Yes, his comments were hurtful, but as a public political figure you have to expect these kinds of negative comments. Plus, like the last line of the article said "the governor of Kansas has more important thing to worry about."

very intristing

It wasn't meant for anybody but her friends, it was simply an accident. They shouldn't be so worried about it but she is right about freedom of speech. I wonder what's going to be done about it.

I think she should at least apologize. Although free speech is an unalienable right, everyone should still share opinions in a respectful manner.

Interesting story.

I like the story, its very interesting that the governor took the twitter post from the teenager to heart and requires an apology letter to be productive and move on, he should be focused on more important things.

Not gonna lie, I've seen far worse things on Twitter.

I find this story very interesting, I do agree that we have freedom of speech. However lying is not in our Constitution. There are multiple worse things that are posted on Facebook, and Twitter.

When it takes a apology letter is needed to work with the gov then they need some one new to take that office. If it was his own kid then it is understandable. but when he does not know them then they shouldn't bother him as much as they have. and it is true that twitter holds many things that are far worse that deal with the gov't.

Lots of comments on this story... looks like the Governor ended up making the apology... here is a followup article http://goo.gl/0IlO1

The girl was at no fault, even though she did not actually do the things she said in the tweet. Hundreds of millions of posts about politicians are posted every. If all of the politicians took the things said to heart the government would be in ever deeper trouble than they are now.

She should be able to say what she wants. Freedom of speech

yeah, she should have used her words more wisely, but freedom of speech is a very important law as long as it is not abused. I'm glad everything worked out, and the gov. corrected himself.

that girl was a meanie bo-beanie

She should have the freedom to voice her opinion however she wants

Teenagers these days have no respect for adults and Authority.

I agree with Audrey, we should be able to protect unborn life, but also make an exception for if she was raped,or if it is an incest baby

I think this is a good decision to put this law into place because it allows exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency" but can still protect an unborn life.

I feel that the law is too restrictive because most women do not know they are pregnant and if you are 18 and have a kid then you might not be financially stable enough to take care of the child, then we have another kid not growing up with their parents or going into a foster care program.

I highly disagree with this. Women have the right to control what goes on with their bodies if they don't want to carry a child at all they shouldn't be made to do so. Just like if a women is married and doesn't want to have kids she should be able to get herself "fixed" she should be required to have two or more children before doing so or get approval from her spouse.

I feel this ban in unfair, as most women wouldn't know they are pregnant until it is too late. With this ban in place it eliminates the women's choice whether they want the child or not.

I agree with hayleigh35, most women can't even tell if they're pregnant by 6 weeks, so the bill really doesn't work in that sense, but I am glad that they put the exceptions of rape, incest or medical emergency. When they're raped, women don't get to choose whether they want to have a kid or not because it is forced upon them. In that case, they should be able to abort the child.

I disagree with this. These people are not going to care about them once they are born so why does it matter or effect them in any way?

This seems like an absolutely bone head move by Governor Reynolds. I can understand now that cases are going down it seems like everything will be ok but restrictions are what bring cases down. Now with a new strain that is more infectious making its way to the US Iowa shouldn't lift any restrictions or things are going to get way worse.

I think we should keep the restrictions, they are there to help the spread, even more, lifting it might just make things worse as how we are now. In the future, we might be ready to lift the restrictions, but it's too soon.

i think we shouldn't lift the masking restrictions. just because the vaccines are out, doesn't mean the pandemic is over. not everyone will be getting the shot right away. numbers are going down because people are actually following the rules. when the numbers go down, we shouldn't lift the rules. it means the rules are actually working

I think during this time lifting the restrictions is the worst possible thing we could do. There are new variants of COVID coming to the U.S. some of which are highly contagious which means now more than ever we should be wearing a mask. The only reason our numbers are down is due to these restrictions and now our governor is going to act shocked when the numbers go up again. We have battled back and forth between lifting restrictions and then enforcing them. Keeping restrictions until COVID is over seems like the most reasonable thing to do at this point.

Even tho we have a vaccine out we should still use mask, because not everyone can get the vaccine right now.

While we do have a vaccine being rolled out, this does not mean that we should lift the mask mandate. COVID-19 cases are going down but we still should be doing our best to make sure that we don't spread it. Plus, the vaccine is only 95% effective. While that is a large percentage, it doesn't mean that it completely protects us from COVID.

I think that it's a horrible idea to lift the mask mandate now. Even though there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel with this pandemic it's just not a logical move to lift it now after months of it being in place when there was no solution. I think we should wait till everyone that wants to be is vaccinated and make sure that it makes a big enough impact that losing our mask will not have an effect the spread. I understand that this pandemic is getting old but if we all start spreading it right before the vaccine is released to everyone and things get so out of hand that we have to lock down again all we have done will be for nothing.

The mask mandate should not be lifted, numbers are going down because people are being safe and wearing masks. The vaccine is out but not everyone has access to it and it is not completely effective. People going out in public with no mask increases the chance of either getting COVID or spreading it more. The mask mandate and restrictions should not be lifted until later on in the future when more people have the vaccine, now does not seem like the right time.

We shouldn't lift the mask mandate. Numbers are going down because we're wearing masks, if we allow people not to wear masks cases will spike. We need to be diligent with these safety measures if we ever want this pandemic to be over.

i dont think we should lift the mask mandate because even if the numbers are going down theyre just going to go right back up. there are still a lot of people who think masks are dumb and useless and refuse to wear them and they put other people at risk, the mandate was the only thing keeping others safe from them. i also know multiple people who arent able to get the vaccine because of past health issues and so wearing a mask was their only way of staying safe.

This doesn't seem safe or smart because cases are still high, and even if they're decreasing now they will spike if everyone stops wearing a mask.

The numbers are going to continue to grow with stuff like this happening. We already don't have a stay at home order,but now we're lifting the masks? This isn't going to make the virus disappear. If anything it will make things worse

I don't think we should lift our masks now since Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.

Lifting our masks now, would just cause more cases to rise and more people will get confirmed. Also there is not enough vaccines currently to give to everyone.

I agree with bklopp601 because I don't think we should lift our masks because Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.

I don't agree that we should lift the mask mandate as more people will get infected and cases will spike up causing another full lockdown and another mask mandate will be enforced later again.

I don't think we should have lifted the mask mandate now that it is lifted more people are going to be getting sick & the cases are going to rise again meaning we could go into another lockdown & the mask mandate will be brought back

I don't think they should lift the mask mandate. Yes, people are getting the vaccine, but most people don't have access to it, plus others don't feel safe getting it. We also have different strains of the virus going around that are more contagious than the original.

I think that lifting the mask mandate is just going to set us back. Even though people are getting the vaccine, majority do not.

I don't think they should've lifted the masking policy. Although cases are going down, Covid is still alive and thriving. If we lift the masking mandates now, we may need to wear masks longer in the future

I agree that the mask mandate should have stayed in place because the cases may be going down but the virus is still very easily spread and without masks cases are destined to go back up.

I don't think they should have lifted it, but honestly, not much has changed, most businesses are still requiring masks (as they should). I still think there needs to be a mandate though.

"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....

i saw the same story broxton!