Court rules in favor of T-shirt

So I guess the T-Shirt vendor being sued by the parents of a soldier should look forward to his victory also! :thumbs:

 

I hope you plan on tying that together for us, soldier and homosexuality.
Why would you be opposed to an anti homosexual viewpoint?

 

. <=============Here's the point. You obviously missed it.

 

So apparently, you have no real point.

 

So apparently, you cannot connect the dots.


Remedial class for donnA...
1. Free speech upheld on Christian's T-shirt
2. Therefore free speech should be upheld for vendor of anti-war shirt as well.

 

Profit has nothing to do with free speech. Making money is capitalism at its heart, and doesn't negate free speech.

 

Do not call me stupid.
It's called freedom of speech, get it. A constutional right in this country. Do you now want to do away with freedom of speech?

edited for the following

I see now, the facts were misrepresented by mp.
This person was making money off the names of dead soldiers, certainly not the same as wearing an anti homosexual tee shirt that does not list names of homosexuals.
Yes, a complete misrepresentation of facts.

 

I didn't call you stupid. And I did not misrepresent anything. Both are free speech issues. If you and you pal don't see that, well...we will leave it at that. I never said they were an exact analogue. But again, you don't connect the dots very well.

 

I believe in facts, without which is chaos.
Selling and wearing a tee shirt are not the samething, and can not be compared. The vendor was making money using dead soldiers, taking advantage of the fact they are dead. The student was making a christian statement about homosexuality.

 

I never said that wearing and selling are the same. The dots you seem unable to connect are the fact that both are protected free speech. The student is making a personal statement of his views. The vendor is making a personal statement of his views, and making his shirts available for others who share those views.

The names of soldiers Bush has sent to die are to illustrate the fact that they should not have died. Bushco has done their best to hide the deaths, refusing media coverage of the return of the bodies and denying even pictures to be taken of flag draped coffins.

Typical of neocon extremists is they want their views heard, but wish to silence opposing viewpoints.

I say keeping their names in public view is best, rather than hiding them and forgetting their sacrifice.

 

I can normally at least see your logic here MP, but here I can't see it.

I think most of us would oppose a t-shirt that said "Be Happy, not Gay" and then had the names of all the known homosexuals in the school printed all over it. This would be more analogous than what you have tried to draw. Most everyone would also support the right to wear an anti-war t-shirt with no names on it.

 

Both are legitimate free speech statements, and as such, should be upheld.

What liberals never seem to get is how to use good taste, responsibility and good judgement in free speech statements.

 

I am not sure that I agree with the first part of this quote, that including the names of other people's names is a "legitimate free statement," but you do make an good point.

 

1. No, they are not. The use of someone's name (lets say yours) in a manner that would be offensive to you in order to illustrate another persons belief is not a freedom of speech right. They are only allowed by our constitution to voice or illustrate their own views without trespass onto your own.
2. I have never known a liberal that possessed "good taste" to use, nor have I known one to be responsible or have good judgement (or any common sense). Liberals by their very nature desire to be free from responsibility (especially concerning the consequences of their actions. That is the reason for their views on morality (or the lack thereof) when debating the issues of the day. If you will take a honest look at their theology with an open mind, you will find they resemble spoilded, selfish, immature children intent on getting what they want, when they want, how they want and on their on terms with no one's interference.
A. Abortion (I want to do with "my" own body what I wish and with whom "what I want" with no concern or regard how it affects anyone else)
B. Homosexuality (I want to do with "my" own body, what I wish and "with with whom I want" without any concern or regard how it affects anyone else)
C. An Adulterated view of free speech.

One does not have the "freedom" to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
Neither shall you use my name for your own addjenda under the guise of "Freedom of Speech". What about my freedom, my privacy, my IDENTITY. Is not it mine? To do with as "I" please? Or can I use yours for whatever addjenda I can imagine?

Also, everyone needs to look again at The Constitution (1st Ammendment). In acuality it does not state what liberals would like it too. It has been reinterpreted in our modern times and adulterated.

 

Hogwash! President Bush has hidden nothing, you must be confusing him with the terrorists that are hiding nuclear weapons.

There are pictures and videos all over youtube of flag-draped coffins arriving back in the states. Do some searching before you make a statement to the contrary.

Here is just one of many.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZwnDVsbgWc&feature=related