I've got your controversial topic for today!

Speaking of bumper stickers....once I saw a bumper sticker that said

'My Boss is a Jewish carpenter'

I thought it was so odd for 2 seconds until I said...DUH they mean Jesus

---

Posted by TM2008

---

Posted by yelley77


You are absolutely right. The problem is, when is freedom of speech taken too far? I think the bumper sticker i saw today was totally crossing the appropriate line.

u bring up a good point.

---

i'm not sure the 'freedom of speech' really has a point where they deem it 'too far'.... then it wouldnt be FREEdom of speech, would it?

you know what i always hated? when i used to go to planned parenthood for my BC pill, there used to be proestors in front of the building yelling things about how abortion is wrong blah blah blah and holding up pics of aborted babies and whatnot.... was it wrong of them to yell things at me as i came and left? yes. however, do they have a right to be there, sure - freedom of speech.

a few times they pissed me off and i let them have a peice of my mind as i drove out.... but its fine, b/c sometimes people give me a peice of their mind on the road b/c of my bumper sticker

---

I think there is a point where things go too far b/c if you think about it, look at how many things on TV and the radio are censored. If we were REALLY able to have total freedom of speech, then there would be no such thing as censoring.

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by TM2008

---

Posted by yelley77


You are absolutely right. The problem is, when is freedom of speech taken too far? I think the bumper sticker i saw today was totally crossing the appropriate line.

u bring up a good point.

---

i'm not sure the 'freedom of speech' really has a point where they deem it 'too far'.... then it wouldnt be FREEdom of speech, would it?

you know what i always hated? when i used to go to planned parenthood for my BC pill, there used to be proestors in front of the building yelling things about how abortion is wrong blah blah blah and holding up pics of aborted babies and whatnot.... was it wrong of them to yell things at me as i came and left? yes. however, do they have a right to be there, sure - freedom of speech.

a few times they pissed me off and i let them have a peice of my mind as i drove out.... but its fine, b/c sometimes people give me a peice of their mind on the road b/c of my bumper sticker

---

there is a point where in the amendment they do deem it 'TOO FAR' thats why when certain ppl scream out well its freedom of speech i always say NO read the amendment bc its not just that. There are clauses and yes there are certain freedoms of speech that are against the law. I wrote a whole thing about it above.

Those protestors get arrested MANY times and yes that is bc they can cause a clear and present danger so sometimes depending on how they handle it then it is wrong and they dont have the right. Yelling at women and lets saying throwing things at them can cause a huge fight and cause people to get hurt so they do have to also protect ppl at the same time.

---

see, yeah i didnt know that... i just read your other post & agree that bumper sticker prob do not fall into that category

yeah i know what you mean about the protestors.. once they jumped in front of my friend's car and wouldnt let her leave

I don't think the clear and present danger clause relates to this:

Better examples are how racist groups cant go into a neighborhood that is primarily that race they are against and go out and speak about how they feel, the law doesnt protect them although there is freedom of speech. By doing that then you are causing clear and present danger.

A racist can saw what they want -- it's the people who hear it and decide to act on it that cause the danger, you know? It's just words. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is different - you're telling them about a danger which isn't present, causing them to act on it - which may cause them danger for no reason - ie stampedes, etc.

If I go up to you and say, you're ugly, your mama's fat, etc ... it's up to YOU not to react in a way that would cause either of us harm, you know? I know racism is deeper than that, but essentially, it's the same principle. It's just words. I'm not telling you that something's happening that isn't such as a fire. It's closely related, but I do not think they are the same.

---

Posted by lizzie217

Speaking of bumper stickers....once I saw a bumper sticker that said

'My Boss is a Jewish carpenter'

I thought it was so odd for 2 seconds until I said...DUH they mean Jesus

---

HHAHA ive seen that one before too and i def had to think about that one before i got it also

there are LOTS of clauses to the 1st amendment. You cant burn a flag, then slander. ANd here is the one i was talking about. And when they wrote all these they were smart bc they said there will be room for elastic clauses to add as times change and new circumstances come up. So thats why even censorship happens, and is part of the amendment now which obviously wasnt in the beginning and they can add as many clauses as they want

In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had, during the war, published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that 'the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'

The 'clear and present danger' test of Schenck was extended in Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a 'clear and present danger' to the conscription system, but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a 'natural tendency' to occlude the draft.

Thus, the Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that 'by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state.' Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by TM2008

---

Posted by yelley77


You are absolutely right. The problem is, when is freedom of speech taken too far? I think the bumper sticker i saw today was totally crossing the appropriate line.

u bring up a good point.

---

i'm not sure the 'freedom of speech' really has a point where they deem it 'too far'.... then it wouldnt be FREEdom of speech, would it?

you know what i always hated? when i used to go to planned parenthood for my BC pill, there used to be proestors in front of the building yelling things about how abortion is wrong blah blah blah and holding up pics of aborted babies and whatnot.... was it wrong of them to yell things at me as i came and left? yes. however, do they have a right to be there, sure - freedom of speech.

a few times they pissed me off and i let them have a peice of my mind as i drove out.... but its fine, b/c sometimes people give me a peice of their mind on the road b/c of my bumper sticker

---

there is a point where in the amendment they do deem it 'TOO FAR' thats why when certain ppl scream out well its freedom of speech i always say NO read the amendment bc its not just that. There are clauses and yes there are certain freedoms of speech that are against the law. I wrote a whole thing about it above.

Those protestors get arrested MANY times and yes that is bc they can cause a clear and present danger so sometimes depending on how they handle it then it is wrong and they dont have the right. Yelling at women and lets saying throwing things at them can cause a huge fight and cause people to get hurt so they do have to also protect ppl at the same time.

---

Yelling at someone is within that person's rights I believe - as long as they do not throw something, become violent or threaten. If they yell 'I'm going to kill you,' that's a threat and harrassment. Saying, 'You are doing a terrible thing' - such as a protester (the sane ones) do, that's freedom of speech, as far as I was taught in my media law class...

---

Posted by JBoothIn2008

I don't think the clear and present danger clause relates to this:

Better examples are how racist groups cant go into a neighborhood that is primarily that race they are against and go out and speak about how they feel, the law doesnt protect them although there is freedom of speech. By doing that then you are causing clear and present danger.

A racist can saw what they want -- it's the people who hear it and decide to act on it that cause the danger, you know? It's just words. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is different - you're telling them about a danger which isn't present, causing them to act on it - which may cause them danger for no reason - ie stampedes, etc.

If I go up to you and say, you're ugly, your mama's fat, etc ... it's up to YOU not to react in a way that would cause either of us harm, you know? I know racism is deeper than that, but essentially, it's the same principle. It's just words. I'm not telling you that something's happening that isn't such as a fire. It's closely related, but I do not think they are the same.

---

so if the KKK went into an all black neighborhood yelling racist remarks you dont think that is causing an environment for clear and present danger. I mean the case that even started the clear and present danger part was bc of what a guy was writing during the war and infact what brought all this about was how words can cause this, and how saying certain things against a group of ppl will do this. So thats how it even started in the first place, so i do think so. Here is the supreme court case that made this clause. The guy who was arrested just spoke out against something he believed in and they found him guilty

the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by JBoothIn2008

I don't think the clear and present danger clause relates to this:

Better examples are how racist groups cant go into a neighborhood that is primarily that race they are against and go out and speak about how they feel, the law doesnt protect them although there is freedom of speech. By doing that then you are causing clear and present danger.

A racist can saw what they want -- it's the people who hear it and decide to act on it that cause the danger, you know? It's just words. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is different - you're telling them about a danger which isn't present, causing them to act on it - which may cause them danger for no reason - ie stampedes, etc.

If I go up to you and say, you're ugly, your mama's fat, etc ... it's up to YOU not to react in a way that would cause either of us harm, you know? I know racism is deeper than that, but essentially, it's the same principle. It's just words. I'm not telling you that something's happening that isn't such as a fire. It's closely related, but I do not think they are the same.

---

so if the KKK went into an all black neighborhood yelling racist remarks you dont think that is causing an environment for clear and present danger. I mean the case that even started the clear and present danger part was bc of what a guy was writing during the war and infact what brought all this about was how words can cause this, and how saying certain things against a group of ppl will do this. So thats how it even started in the first place, so i do think so. Here is the supreme court case that made this clause. The guy who was arrested just spoke out against something he believed in and they found him guilty

the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'

---

I think that in that case the KKK has to apply for a permit for a rally- and they would not be granted one in an all black neighborhood

---

Posted by futuremrsfab

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by JBoothIn2008

I don't think the clear and present danger clause relates to this:

Better examples are how racist groups cant go into a neighborhood that is primarily that race they are against and go out and speak about how they feel, the law doesnt protect them although there is freedom of speech. By doing that then you are causing clear and present danger.

A racist can saw what they want -- it's the people who hear it and decide to act on it that cause the danger, you know? It's just words. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is different - you're telling them about a danger which isn't present, causing them to act on it - which may cause them danger for no reason - ie stampedes, etc.

If I go up to you and say, you're ugly, your mama's fat, etc ... it's up to YOU not to react in a way that would cause either of us harm, you know? I know racism is deeper than that, but essentially, it's the same principle. It's just words. I'm not telling you that something's happening that isn't such as a fire. It's closely related, but I do not think they are the same.

---

so if the KKK went into an all black neighborhood yelling racist remarks you dont think that is causing an environment for clear and present danger. I mean the case that even started the clear and present danger part was bc of what a guy was writing during the war and infact what brought all this about was how words can cause this, and how saying certain things against a group of ppl will do this. So thats how it even started in the first place, so i do think so. Here is the supreme court case that made this clause. The guy who was arrested just spoke out against something he believed in and they found him guilty

the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.'

---

I think that in that case the KKK has to apply for a permit for a rally- and they would not be granted one in an all black neighborhood

---

but ppl do it without a permit, thats the problem. This has actually happened before and they got arrested, there was one video i saw on those shows where they show extreme crazy things and a HUGE fight started when the KKK actually did do this. It was real bad and people really got hurt, and they got arrested. Or how about those guys in manhattan that stand on those boxes yelling out racist things, they are insane. They actually yell out racist things to people as they walk by, and i mean horrible nasty things. They will call out a person walking by and say yeah you, you are the devil and you are a murderer and stuff of that nature. There was this one group who did this alot downtown, they would get arrested or just told to leave but they were horrible. I would sit there hearing them cursing ppl out, theyve even said things to me lol, and i just remember thinking, oh god somebody is gonna flip out and do something.

Wow.

I have no words.

i think i am gonna get this bumper sticker



this one is histerical

---

Posted by Espo22

i think i am gonna get this bumper sticker



this one is histerical

---

LMAO.

PS, this is my car.

and this was my car in '04

I'll end with this one:

Sorry to those who have them but...

I HATE bumper stickers of all kinds. Funny, mean, stupid all of them. I also can't stand those family peel and sticks people have in their car windows or the balls that make it look like the window is broke.

DUMB!