Featured A Brief History of the GOP War on Yoga and Its Pants

No to the speech and no to the religion because they are protected under the U.S. constitution.

Not based on religious grounds.

Offensive materials may or may not fall under the free speech clause of the constitution.

Then explain how the FCC can ban swear words, nudity, and explicit sex acts on over the air TV?

 

I have no say in an area I choose not to live.

In Petersham Massachusetts, the townsfolk have decided that you can only paint your house white.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting offensive clothing.

 

Going to admit your mistake, C.T. Boy ?

 

Its the Marxists like you and Obamma and the Federal government that most people want out of their lives.

The Federal Government has two major responsibilities, deliver the mail and defend the country. Delivering the mail has been in trouble for years and under Obamma defending the country is in last place!

 

Is that a law or an agreed upon code? Kind of like my HOA agrees that you should keep your mailbox and post clean, but they cannot legally prosecute you if it gets dirty...

No doubt. My only concern on your comment, Curtis, was the vagueness of the wording. Using the phrase "what they see as offensive" is what opens the can of worms. Some people, believe it or not, are offended by the American Flag (simply the symbol of our nation). Some people are offended by the Bible (the cornerstone printed document of entire faiths). Some people are offended by a swastika (an ancient far east sign, known as the gammadion cross, which is revered as a sacred symbol in eastern religions, yet was co-opted by Nazi Germany and turned into a symbol of hate).

Unless there is an agreed upon definition of what is and is not offensive, then we continue to tread that fine line. That's all I was trying to say.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

See ? You haven't read this thread. or you're being purposefully dishonest.

You made this clam…..(Ha ! Freudian typo)

Care to correct this ? Or am I a slanderer ?

Ummm, this is YOUR thread.

 

It's a local ordinance.

Agreed.

I agree with that as well. It's a slippery slope. But I don't want the feds involved, either way.

 

C.T.Boy, you have a mistake to address. Are you going to do it ?

Do you think it's rational to ignore this ?

 

Because if you aren't going to correct your statement, then I'm pretty sure your caterwauling over my other thread can be written off as a bunch of hypocritical horse manure.

 

Tell you what. You admit you were wrong about the supreme court and I'll fix my thread title for you.

Deal ?

 

:laugh::laugh:Not at all on-topic. Your challenge is based on personal attire-in-public laws, not any broadcast decency laws, or laws concerning private establishments. Strip clubs are not part of this. Stop trying to squirm out of your own words.

Show us this ruling. And remember you cited your original article as proof of this.



Now you want us to look somewhere else.:laugh:

 

Crabtownboy, don't be a wimp, and admit that you misread your link about the supreme court, and it caused you to make an errant statement. They have not ruled anti-nudity laws illegal. Just say it. Then I'll fix the title of my thread about testosterone.

 

This has noting to do with broadcast laws and you know it. Just know that this post is seen for what it is.