Group items tagged

The speech was well thought out and very well written. I think it's interesting how inspiring she's been to people due to the speech.

I think her speech was amazing. I never really listen to those kinds of things or pay attention, but I'm glad I did. However, I'm not sure going from giving a speech, to being president is very realistic. More power to her though for thinking ahead like 15 years.

I was lucky enough to be able to watch the inauguration in my classes. I was enthralled by Amanda Gorman's speech. I feel like her words were well said and represented Americans of all ages and backgrounds. I believe that her speech has influenced younger generations to have a voice. While she has quite a ways to go, I do believe that she could be president someday.

I think her speech can reach all different people of different race, gender, etc. I think she can talk to different generations, especially the younger ones who one day will be the voices of our society. I think it was well thought out and a very good speech.

I thought her speech was amazing. I like how she worked to make sure it could reach all kinds of people. I also thought it was really inspiring reading about her speech impediment and how she didn't let it prevent her from writing and performing her poems.

Amanda's poem was amazing. Her words were so inspirational. I think Americans needed to hear something about hope, especially after last year's crazy events. And I'm sure that if she was able to overcome her speech impediment to speak in front of so many people, she can do anything she sets her mind to, even becoming a future president. I can't wait to see what other things she achieves!

I think that she had a really good speech. I liked the way she would word things and reached all different kinds of people. It was a very inspirational speech and i feel like she has a good future in front of her.

I understand how unique this poem is and how well it is said and written, but honestly after listening and understand each individual sentence and word ( including definitions of words ) it just sounds like what other people have been saying for the past 365 days without the high-level words. She talks about how much America is broken after everything that happened in 2020, how many steps we need to take so everything is not back to the way it was before, but where we want it to be and where we want it to go. Congrats to her by all means, but hearing the same things being said over and over again just makes her poem less impactful. Of course, these problems need solving but most people just the problem not how to fix them.

"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 don't think she should have been kicked out for expressing her opinion about the squad. There are so many people who do that especially about teachers.It doesn't effect how anyone is i.e bullying/ harassment these are just things that she thinks about the school and the sport.

I believe that the coach had the right to kick her off of the squad. Her speech may have been protected however sports while they may be connected to the school ultimately if the coach decides that a participant is setting a bad example for their team they will be kicked out.

I don't think she should have been kicked out for expressing how she felt if anything make her do more conditioning but dont kick her off the team

I dont think that the coach really had any right to kick her off the team, she was expressing how it all made her feel and it was not at school, and why would someone even show the coach? why did they feel then need to do they

I feel like the coach should not have had the right to kick the girl off the team because she expressed her feelings. The girl did this outside of school and it happens daily everywhere it is just never reported to the coach.

I don't think the coach should have been able to kick her off the team she was expressing her feelings. I mean if they would have just let her on the team in the first place this situation wouldn't have happened.

I think it was wrong for her to be kicked off the team just because she was expressing her feelings. It didn't even happen at school so she should not get punished by the school.

Here is another link to the story if the original is not available for you... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56886687

i think he was right to kick her off the team because the speech wasn't appropriate and that represents the teams, but i also think that she had the right to say what she was thinking, just not in that way. if he kicked her off for expressing her thoughts in a different way, then that would not be okay.

In my opinion the coach should not have been able to kick her off the team. She was simply expressing her emotions and feelings about school. Many students say stuff like this in school and don't get punished for it.

I personally think that kicking her off the team was the right decision. Her speech directly affected the team, the coaches, and the school, and action needed to be taken so it was clear that inappropriate conduct won't be tolerated. If she had worded her thoughts differently, maybe the outcome wouldn't have been the same.

I feel like they shouldn't punish her. She was off school and had the right to voice her opinion. The school can't do anything if she wasn't even on school grounds.

I think in this specific case they shouldn't have kicked her off the team because she was expressing how she feels. She didn't say anything offensive and she wasn't specifically targeting people. If what she said was targeting someone negatively or she was targeting the coach then maybe it'd be a different story but she was vaguely expressing her feelings and I don't think there is anything wrong with what she said.

I don't think she should have been kicked off the team because she wasn't directly targeting someone. She was just voicing how she felt, I don't think she should be punished for that.

I don't think she should be allowed to be kicked off for this because with something like this there isn't really anyone in specific that this is aimed towards so there's no targeted harm.

I feel like they had a right to kick her off of the team. I'm on a competitive dance team and if I say anything that bashes or offends people at or people that work at my studio, then I would be kicked off of the team. She posted a photo saying that she's done with cheerleading and that is definitely something that would cost her a spot on the team.

I feel like that is the right to free speech and she shouldn't be punished, but at the same time if its F School and F Cheerleading then why do it? Why participate in it then? Seems stupid on her part and disrespectful to the team, which I can see why she should also get kicked off. Because they don want someone like her representing their team.

I think that it was right for them to kick her off because on a team you want to have responsible and respectful teammates. What she did affect the wholes teams image so I agree with what was done

Fox news also broke the speech down in smaller videos if you are curious to see only a certain part. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/24/watch-video-highlights-from-president-obama%E2%80%99s-2012-state-of-the-union-address/

Obama's tax reform would be a good idea if it were implemented. It will be interesting to see what kind of resistance the "Buffet Rule" is met with from conservatives such as Donald Trump.

A lot of this is great proposals, but sadly I think most of it is just empty words and will not take action, or solve any problems.

These plans sounds good, it will solve many problems if it succeeds.

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 think "attack" is not necessarily the appropriate word for this particular situation... Everyone is entitled there opinion, and I see how some people could find this unprofessional to do it at such an event like the Golden Globes. I was watching at the time when she said what she did, and the audience applauded her afterwards, so overall I believe that Meryl stated her opinion and theirs nothing wrong with that. I am not for sure, but I do know that these actors are asked to give speeches before hand and rehearse before the show... and she must have been given the right to give the speech anyway, possibly to start talk and get attention.

I agree with delanie because everyone is entitled there opinion. But at the same time, i don't think that this was the time or place to bring it up. But in the same way, it needs to be brought up, just not in that setting.

I agree with delaniehubbard because I wouldn't consider it an attack. Meryl was just stating that she didn't think that what Trump did was appropriate. I think it was right for her to address this and she was also correct when she said "This instinct to humiliate when it's modeled by someone in the public ... by someone powerful, it filters down into everyone's life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same." Its not correct for someone that will be the next president to be doing this, because its disrespectful

I agree with delanie because everyone does have their own opinion

I think that Streep calling out Trump was very appropriate. When Kanye called out Taylor Swift years ago at an awards show it was glorified so I don't think that a highly respected woman who is voicing her opinion over serious conflict, not trying to start drama or a "twitter war" is very appropriate and is in no way a problem. I agree with everything Streep said and I'm sure many people in the audience and viewing the award show did also.

Colbert is better

Yeah but, I am America and so can you

KC news is reporting on petitions to have the Westboro Church classified as a hate group and remove their tax exempt status as a "church" http://fox4kc.com/2012/12/17/westboro-meets-its-match-thousands-sign-retaliatory-petitions/

I don't condone the activities of this group but they have freedom of speech and the right to do whatever they want with it no matter how hateful it is and people could have private funerals

They should leave people be, to bad they most likely never will, Because the parents can't even stop them without likely being sued by Westboro.

I do not agree with their way of think about homosexuals. I think that the church should mind their own business in their own sate. The parents and everyone should just ignore the Westboro Church.

i think we should ignore the group otherwise we are giving them the attention they want.

It is sad that this church will stoop this low to get their (totally invalid) point across. They are a bunch of idiots if you ask me.

I think that they have the right to be there, but they should understand that this is not a good time to do this. They should understand how hard it must be for their parents, and would feel the same way if one of their children died. I also do not agree with the fact they blame homosexuality for all the problems and say God hates America. In reality God does not hate anyone because we are all his children.

I can truly see the side of the Westboro Baptist Church but it does not mean that I agree with it. I find that America itself has quite a few strange beliefs itself defended by these rights. I don't have any means to go against these rights.

I think that they have the ability to not allow the Church to protest.

I'm all for free speech. But I think there should definitely be a line drawn as where freedom of speech ends.

there are videos of this on you tube shes an amazing little girl... makes me wish more people in charge would listen...

I agree, Mitt Romney was the clear winner. I watched the entire live debate at home and Mitt Romney was on fire. He was very prepared, but it didn't seem scripted. At the beginning of the show it explained how all debates are very detailed in their scripts, even with random comments to their opponent. He was very engaged in the conversation and stayed on the different topics and specifically pointed out his differences between what he and Obama were saying. It was a very interesting debate. The both had a lot to say, but over all, Romney was at the top of his game while Obama was a little out of it and didn't seem quite as interested.

People keep saying Mitt Romney won but I honestly don't think he did I am not judging them on how well they speak I am judging on who has the beliefs I do and who will do what I believe right for this country and in that case I believe Obama "won" the debate because no one can really win the debate granted one can look more prepared or more interested and I'll agree that Romney did do that but he didn't say the things I wanted to hear from the future president Obama did

In all honesty, from what the article mentioned, Obama did not say much to discredit Romney. I'm wondering if Obama is going to hold out and save the infamous 47% mark, vague political outline of his plan, and any other anti-Romney ideas until a later date within this election. Also, Rainie, as for not being able to win a debate, I disagree for the most part, but not in full. Political ideals fall into, "Who wins a political debate." The debate itself, is just getting people to realize what policies they believe would work. This is one situation that I agree, there can be no winner. But as to most debates, there are clear winners.

Exactly I agree with most of that Payton, I was specifically talking about this debate. I don't need them to say everything in that one debate because I don't just listen to the debate to get my information I listen to them on just regular speeches and articles all that good stuff and out of all of that not just the debate I think people should make their decision. Just my opinion

I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.

I agree with zayne

I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate

I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.

I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.

I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.

I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag

This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.

I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it

In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.

These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned

I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.

i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.

I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.

They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.

This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.

They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.

I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.

I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.

I do not agree with the school banning the flag.

I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.

Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.