http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/27/bush.posters.ap/index.html
Ok, when you alter someone's image to make them look like someone else without anyone permission is that not defamation?
The constitution doesn't protect you when you infringe upon other people's rights. (Which is why I feel that the cruel & unusual punishment protection of the 8th amendment is bogus)
EDIT:
Here is another case inwhich I feel is quite similar. It's not direct defamation but it still plays upon what is going on in a negative way.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/27/delay.law.order/index.html
Quote from: CrAz3D on May 27, 2005, 12:07 PM
Ok, when you alter someone's image to make them look like someone else without anyone permission is that not defamation?
No, it's just fun satire. To be defamation, they'd have to be made to look real, not funny. Pasting Bush into some environment where he might have likely been, doing something that he might've done, but that gives him a bad reputation, could be defamation. Comic artists draw satirical images of famous people all the time.
Besides, those posters were apparently removed because they promoted smoking, not because they defamed Bush. Public personas have to expect being "victims" of satire.
I realize they were removed because of the 'smoking' but that only happened because someone complained about them.
First and foremost, greetings from Berlin.
On the topic, the point is that in a lot of cases its overlooked when the subject of the ridicule is a public personality.
People cry out "I'm offended" WAYYYY too often.
Satire is protected under the 1st amendment. Even the conservative judges of the supreme court agree to that.
An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
Alot of people like to embrace the first amendment. Alot of them also do not realize that while you have the right to say anything, others also have the right to hold you responsible for what you say.
Quote from: DarkMinion on June 14, 2005, 08:55 AM
Alot of people like to embrace the first amendment. Alot of them also do not realize that while you have the right to say anything, others also have the right to hold you responsible for what you say.
Perhaps. But saying something like "People should go shoot all the towelheads in the middle east" is not the same as actually going and carrying out the act. The bullshit about people being offended is just that -- bullshit. So some kid called you a towelhead -- are you going to whine, bitch, and moan about it, or are you going to counter some stereotype or vindicate yourself? At the end of the day, whining and the like gets nothing done except reinforces the stereotype about which you're whining.
And of course there are *reasonable* limits to what you can say. You shouldn't yell "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded theatre, as panic WOULD ensue. You shouldn't make a direct threat of bodily harm to someone else. But the very vague and unlikely suggestion that I gave above wouldn't offend someone because he/she was threatened with bodily harm -- it was that he/she was called a towelhead.
If you don't like the way someone talks about you or others, you have the right to leave that person alone.
QuoteBut saying something like "People should go shoot all the towelheads in the middle east" is not the same as actually going and carrying out the act
No, but saying "I'm going to shoot the president" is not the same thing as actually doing it, but you can still be held responsible for saying it.
Quote from: Topaz on June 04, 2005, 02:39 PM
An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.
Actually, wouldn't it only leave the world with only one eye each? (Unless you only had one eye to begin with).
Let's say you hit someone then they hit you back, they are justified in doing it. But if you hit them for hitting you that isn't justice, that is being an idiot
Quote from: DarkMinion on June 14, 2005, 06:35 PM
QuoteBut saying something like "People should go shoot all the towelheads in the middle east" is not the same as actually going and carrying out the act
No, but saying "I'm going to shoot the president" is not the same thing as actually doing it, but you can still be held responsible for saying it.
That is much more specific than saying "all the towelheads in the Middle East."
I also wonder what you mean by 'responsibility'.
All I'm really driving at, though, is that people don't have the right to not be offended. People who get offended and then piss and moan to the courts should really shut up.
ok, let me try to figure that last bit out.
People don't have the right to not be offended means.... "People have the right to be offended"?
It isn't a right to not be offended by something. You shouldn't be offended at something automatically and then claim a right to be not offended. I think that's what Arta's getting at.
Ultimately, I think that it's a matter of people whining. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and what they say -- but c'mon, is saying that you're going to shoot all the towelheads in the Middle East *really* going to do harm? And you'd really only be jeopardized for threatening the President's life if something actually happened.
People don't have the right to legal redress just because someone happened to offend them about something. Different people get offended by different things all the time. People shouldn't expect that they have the right to go through life never being offended by anything.
Trite example: I wear leather shoes. If a vegetarian sued me because my shoes offended them, would that be ok? Similarly, if someone was offended by me calling them a blithering idiot, should they have the right to redress? No. If I write a play that satirises someone's religion, should I be legally required to cease performances of the play? Or pay damages? No.
Obviously this isn't the same as wanting redress when someone makes a factually incorrect accusation: that's fine. I'm just talking about people who believe that they should never be offended by, anyone, ever, and/or expect government to get involved when they are. Those people need to shut up.
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 14, 2005, 07:41 PM
ok, let me try to figure that last bit out.
People don't have the right to not be offended means.... "People have the right to be offended"?
Try "People have the right to offend"?
But it gets to be an issue when power and influence is involved. You can completely destroy, per say, a Senator's reputation and make it so that he cannot run again. Destroying his reputation should either have a consequence, or draw the line from how much you can really say. ( Editing free speech amendment in the best interests of the people )
Quote from: Topaz on June 25, 2005, 07:33 PM
But it gets to be an issue when power and influence is involved. You can completely destroy, per say, a Senator's reputation and make it so that he cannot run again. Destroying his reputation should either have a consequence, or draw the line from how much you can really say. ( Editing free speech amendment in the best interests of the people )
But that steps on his livelihood. We have laws against that. But if I offended Senator Teddy Drink-em-down Kennedy, he'd have to get over it.
QuoteDestroying his reputation should either have a consequence, or draw the line from how much you can really say. ( Editing free speech amendment in the best interests of the people )
I belive libel and slander are both illegal. However if the allegations are true it is neither.