Carrie Prejean

[NBVegita]

I personally think all this outrage over her is seriously crazy.

 

The same people who in one breath support their own freedom of speach and don't want people harassing them for their lifestyles and ideas are harassing someone else.

 

I say let everyone have their own opinions, we don't want a country full of sheep.

[Aceflyer]

I second this. Carrie has every right to speak in opposition to something that is, in her home state, illegal.

[Cancer+]

I agree. Free speech first.

[SeVeR]

Let's not give stupid people such a platform in the first place.

[Aceflyer]

It's a stupid platform to begin with.

[SeVeR]

Then you'd have to say that anyone discussing it is equally stupid for paying attention to a stupid person on a stupid platform.

[Aceflyer]

Nope. Can you say the words, "media hype?" Edited May 12, 2009 by Aceflyer

[SeVeR]

So the media are stupid but where does the buck stop? The media only hype something if people are stupid enough to listen to it.

[Bak]

yeah media making a big deal out of nothing...

 

like her underwear pics... wtf she's a model that's what they do

[Requiem.]

Freedom of speech.

Now.

Forever.

Always.

[Bak]

why always? there might be some instances where we want to limit free speech, such as disallowing people to yell fire in a movie theater. don't mindlessly accept everything you've been told over since being a child; people have agendas

[SeVeR]

Freedom of speech. Should people with a voice heard by millions not be held accountable if they influence the path of a democracy? I'm talking about the media here. Should a news channel be allowed to support a candidate, providing positive and negative news accordingly? Surely this comes under the definition of propaganda. There needs to be a serious overhaul in my opinion, with stricter laws on freedom of "opinionated" speech within the media.

[Aceflyer]

So the media are stupid but where does the buck stop? The media only hype something if people are stupid enough to listen to it.

 

I'm not saying anyone is stupid. I think the beauty queen pageant idea is stupid as it objectifies women. That's just my opinion about the beauty queen pageant as a pageant. No one's stupid, people are just different and have their own opinions and agendas. Don't put words in my mouth.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Aceflyer

[Bak]

Yes, all people deserve to respectfully present their opinions without being harassed for it.

she deserves to be able to present her opinion, but we also deserve to be able to harass her for it

[FMBI]

I must be the only person in the universe that didn't know her name; the only thing I had heard about the whole mess was when I noticed a headline on Reuters under "most read." This fits my definition of a story that doesn't fucking matter. If we were in a court, the decision would have no value as precedent, because it's so irrelevant to everything. Gay marriage? Nope, other than arousing emotion. Free speech? It's a beauty pageant, for Christ's sake. The purpose of beauty pageants? People have been trying to kill them for years (me included).

 

Just forget the whole stupid thing.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Requiem.]

Yes, all people deserve to respectfully present their opinions without being harassed for it.

she deserves to be able to present her opinion, but we also deserve to be able to harass her for it

 

Bak harrassment crosses the freedom line.

 

Spoiler! --Click here to view--

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation

 

@SeVeR.

 

Freedom of speech;

The right to seek information and ideas;

the right to receive information and ideas;

the right to impart information and ideas.

 

(Source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_sp...eedom_of_speech.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Requiem.

[Bak]

that's retarded. what constitutes hate speech is up to interpretation. all we have to do is say criticizing your government is hate speech and we "legally" limited free speech.

[SeVeR]

Propaganda is free speech. Yes, we need to define propaganda, but if it's clear that a media source is influencing the minds of the public, then how can we let free speech protect them?

 

My primary example would be the Fox "News" Channel.

 

I'm going away from the beauty queen tripe here because like Fin I don't care, and I don't want to get drawn into a debate about it. But this question is related.

[Aceflyer]

As a liberal, I'm a big fan of Fox.

[SeVeR]

As a reader of history I am wary of anything that reminds me of the Nazis.

[NBVegita]

she deserves to be able to present her opinion, but we also deserve to be able to harass her for it

 

I agree, but I don't agree with the double standards that if we harass her for her opinion its ok, but if you harass someone who's pro-gay you're a bigot.

 

I say if you're going to let people harass one another, let them do it equally.

[Aceflyer]

What if, instead of being anti-gay, Carrie was anti-interracial marriage? No one would stand for that. And there is a very simple reason for this: interracial marriage is legal in her state (California), while gay marriage isn't. Hence why Carrie has done nothing wrong. She is speaking out against something that is already illegal in her state.

[Bak]

you seem to imply that the law should determine what's right and wrong, whereas I'd argue it's be the other way around.

[NBVegita]

you seem to imply that the law should determine what's right and wrong, whereas I'd argue it should be the other way around.

 

Agreed.

[Aceflyer]

-shrugs- People decide what is right and wrong and from that, they write the law. The law then says what is right and wrong. And if enough people don't like what the law says, they can change the law. So it goes both ways.

 

As it is, on this particular issue the people and the law of California are in agreement, seeing as how the people voted the law in just a few months ago.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Aceflyer