Today's Headlines
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
I learnt one Russian sign by accident. I was teaching a group of homeschooled kids American Sign Language during a support group day and two of the girls in the class had recently been adopted from Russia. I was going over the alphabet and really offended them when I got to the letter "t".
Onward and Upward!
- Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
true dat Brudda. I never paid much attention to his rants anyway.Big Blue Owl wrote:Not good enough, buddy. All of the same ilk. More people would gladly believe in God if there weren't idiots like this fouling the good name of Christ.CygnusX1 wrote:True that he was "out there", but he was one of the only counters we had against the Sharpton/Jackson mob.Big Blue Owl wrote: Sad because of the waste of a good Reuben sandwich?
I have a strong feeling he didn't go "UP", if you know what I mean.
The horrible things he said all of his life about human beings is a sad thing.
To me, the fact that someone like this had a very visible platform for so many years to spew his venom is the saddest thing of all.
But I dig what you're sayin
Don't start none...won't be none.
- Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
- Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
- Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
A vital, modern example of the debate between people who advocate freedom of conscience and those who believe in freedom within the limits of moral legislation resulted in the 1988 Supreme Court decision that multimillionaire televangelist Jerry Falwell ? founder and leader of the Moral Majority, and at that time the second most-admired man in America after President Ronald Reagan, according to a Good Housekeeping poll ? could not collect damages from multimillionaire porn king Larry Flynt for the emotional distress Falwell claimed he suffered when Flynt's Hustler magazine published a parody of an advertisement in which Falwell was portrayed as having lost his virginity by having intercourse with his own mother in an outhouse while they both were drunk on Campari liqueur.
In the short run the Supreme Court decision was perhaps of minor importance to both Falwell and Flynt. Both men are as wealthy as crooks, and the award in question amounted to only $200,000. Both men are far too popular with their own constituencies for their reputations to be seriously damaged by the opinions of enemies such as each other. And neither man is a stranger to the courtroom. Flynt in particular has been such an ardent defender of First Amendment rights that he served prison time for contempt of court after screaming obscenities at the Supreme Court Justices during a trial in which he was a litigant. Falwell, for his part in this morality play, chose as his attorney one Norman Roy Grutman, who had previously represented Penthouse magazine in numerous lawsuits including several against Falwell himself.
But in the long run the final decision in Falwell v. Flynt was of tremendous importance ? not only because it let the scurrilous, pugnacious Flynt publish a nasty satire of the strait-laced, white middle-class American daddy Falwell, but chiefly because these two mean-spirited men perfectly represent the extreme positions in American society regarding some of our nation's most fundamental freedoms. Moreover, when the Supreme Court made its decision in favor of Flynt's right to publish his satire over Falwell's right not to be lampooned, it did so unamimously; and the opinion exonerating Flynt was written by the court's least likely personality, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Prior to Falwell v. Flynt Rehnquist had voted against the press every time he had heard such a case before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in finding for Flynt he wrote, "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.... The freedom to speak one's mind,'" he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union, "is not only an aspect of individual liberty ? and thus a good unto itself ? but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.'"
The process of this case from the original trial, which Falwell won, through the first appeal, which Falwell also won, to the Supreme Court decision took four years. Rodney Smolla, author of Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt, is a prominent law professor, an attorney, and expert in First Amendment matters who followed the case closely and also wrote an amicus curia brief in favor of Flynt. He does not seem to like Flynt very much, but as he points out over and over in his book, the importance of this case lies not in the personalities of the two highly visible contestants or their equally vociferous attorneys, but in the way it treats the First Amendment, and the way the First Amendment shall be viewed in the near future as a consequence of this trial. The conclusion to this case, he says, was a resounding triumph for the rights of free speech in a free society.
For many Americans, it is inconceivable that the First Amendment could be intended to protect Hustler Magazine and the type of crude, mean-spirited attack Flynt launched against Falwell. Surely, they think, Hustler is beneath the dignity of the First Amendment. Surely, freedom of speech is not an absolute license of licentiousness. Flynt's coarse speech is nothing but excrement, a form of moral pollution fouling the cultural environment.
For other Americans, Hustler is the quintessential example of what ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Tolerance is often nothing but indifference. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the speech is bland, polite, and civilized. Tolerance is only meaningful when the speech is jarring to mainstream sensibilities.... Like the pilots in Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff, who strain their planes to the breaking point to "test the envelope," Larry Flynt and Hustler constantly push us to the outer limits of our tolerance. If we are really to be a pluralistic and open culture ... we must be willing to embrace all speech, even speech at the extremes, for it is only by such toleration that we give meaning to the ideal of an open society.
In the short run the Supreme Court decision was perhaps of minor importance to both Falwell and Flynt. Both men are as wealthy as crooks, and the award in question amounted to only $200,000. Both men are far too popular with their own constituencies for their reputations to be seriously damaged by the opinions of enemies such as each other. And neither man is a stranger to the courtroom. Flynt in particular has been such an ardent defender of First Amendment rights that he served prison time for contempt of court after screaming obscenities at the Supreme Court Justices during a trial in which he was a litigant. Falwell, for his part in this morality play, chose as his attorney one Norman Roy Grutman, who had previously represented Penthouse magazine in numerous lawsuits including several against Falwell himself.
But in the long run the final decision in Falwell v. Flynt was of tremendous importance ? not only because it let the scurrilous, pugnacious Flynt publish a nasty satire of the strait-laced, white middle-class American daddy Falwell, but chiefly because these two mean-spirited men perfectly represent the extreme positions in American society regarding some of our nation's most fundamental freedoms. Moreover, when the Supreme Court made its decision in favor of Flynt's right to publish his satire over Falwell's right not to be lampooned, it did so unamimously; and the opinion exonerating Flynt was written by the court's least likely personality, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Prior to Falwell v. Flynt Rehnquist had voted against the press every time he had heard such a case before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in finding for Flynt he wrote, "At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.... The freedom to speak one's mind,'" he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union, "is not only an aspect of individual liberty ? and thus a good unto itself ? but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.'"
The process of this case from the original trial, which Falwell won, through the first appeal, which Falwell also won, to the Supreme Court decision took four years. Rodney Smolla, author of Jerry Falwell v. Larry Flynt, is a prominent law professor, an attorney, and expert in First Amendment matters who followed the case closely and also wrote an amicus curia brief in favor of Flynt. He does not seem to like Flynt very much, but as he points out over and over in his book, the importance of this case lies not in the personalities of the two highly visible contestants or their equally vociferous attorneys, but in the way it treats the First Amendment, and the way the First Amendment shall be viewed in the near future as a consequence of this trial. The conclusion to this case, he says, was a resounding triumph for the rights of free speech in a free society.
For many Americans, it is inconceivable that the First Amendment could be intended to protect Hustler Magazine and the type of crude, mean-spirited attack Flynt launched against Falwell. Surely, they think, Hustler is beneath the dignity of the First Amendment. Surely, freedom of speech is not an absolute license of licentiousness. Flynt's coarse speech is nothing but excrement, a form of moral pollution fouling the cultural environment.
For other Americans, Hustler is the quintessential example of what ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Tolerance is often nothing but indifference. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the speech is bland, polite, and civilized. Tolerance is only meaningful when the speech is jarring to mainstream sensibilities.... Like the pilots in Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff, who strain their planes to the breaking point to "test the envelope," Larry Flynt and Hustler constantly push us to the outer limits of our tolerance. If we are really to be a pluralistic and open culture ... we must be willing to embrace all speech, even speech at the extremes, for it is only by such toleration that we give meaning to the ideal of an open society.
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
- Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
- Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
- ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
Thanks.
Interesting quote from Flint:
Interesting quote from Flint:
The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without question, this was my most important battle ? the l988 Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.
My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in
California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
- Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
- Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
- Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
"And echoes with the sounds of salesmen"ElfDude wrote:Thanks.
Interesting quote from Flint:
The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without question, this was my most important battle ? the l988 Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.
My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in
California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.
Interesting Elfie!
Ya know, in today's political atmosphere of Al Sharptons and Don Imuses I would somehow think that decision might go another direction today.
Freeze this moment a little bit longer...
- Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
Why were they offended?awip2062 wrote:I learnt one Russian sign by accident. I was teaching a group of homeschooled kids American Sign Language during a support group day and two of the girls in the class had recently been adopted from Russia. I was going over the alphabet and really offended them when I got to the letter "t".
Freeze this moment a little bit longer...