Results 41 to 50 of 64
Thread: OMG I made front page!!!
-
07-04-2009 #41Originally Posted by Danielle Foxx
P.S. Hows your pussy? Looks good enough to eat!
XOXOX -Jas
-
07-04-2009 #42Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
Originally Posted by jcinva
-
07-04-2009 #43Originally Posted by TSMissJasmine
Originally Posted by jcinva
-
07-04-2009 #44
Truthfully I have to agree with Danielle here.
Using "free speech" in this context as a defensive argument is just absurd, if not intellectually dishonest.
There's no disputing the fact that yes, people have a natural right to free speech, including hate speech. The "screaming fire" analogy was a fallacy from the very start, as anyone who has actually read the SCOTUS ruling that quote comes from can attest.
The background to that "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" quote is that, roughly a hundred years ago- someone was standing outside of a theatre (actually across the street from it iirc), handing out fliers talking about the need for building code changes, and how the insufficiently regulated buildings in the area such as the theatre across the street were fire hazards putting people at grave risk. What prompted the "Screaming fire in a crowded theatre" argument was that Oliver Wendell Holmes's son needed some kind of argument to justify preventing people from expressing their political views when doing so caused private businesses to loose money, so ever the authoritarian big business pawn, he made up an exaggeration to paint the story as if people were causing panic in a crowded place. This wasn't true of course, he just wanted to trample their right to free speech. Never let the truth get in the way of a bad ruling ... and people have been sheepishly buying into the bullshit line ever since.
What makes the "free speech" argument worthless in this context is that we're talking about a private site that people are posting on. Most internet users do not use their own websites to express their views, instead they either use private websites like blogspot, or privately run internet forums (like this one), and similar sites. Since these are "private" websites, admins & moderators have full power to control what content goes on their websites.
That is to say, if "John Smith" runs a website called "John Smith's blog," since its a private website its not an ethical problem if he deletes comments to his blog stories that he doesn't like (spam, hateful comments, swear words, whatever). If "John Smith" puts up a site on another website (i.e. blogspot) then he has to agree to their terms of use, and those terms stipulate that he cannot use their site to express hate speech.
Of course this also means that a website operator could chose to (provided their host, redirect server, and ISP Terms of Services allow it) run a site that allows, or encourages hate speech. This is not, legally anyway, a problem- nor should it be.
But the simple truth that people like to ignore is that legality and morality are two vastly different things. Something immoral could be legal, that doesn't mean doing it ("because its legal") is the right thing to do. When people have the legal ability to do immoral things, it is their conduct that shows their true colors- and at no time is that more apparent then the people who would use their legal, natural rights to do immoral, harmful things (i.e. proliferate hate speech). As they say, "evil prevails when good men do nothing." Inaction on the part of webmasters when people use websites for belligerent purposes goes to show the immorality & poor judgment of said webmasters.
There comes a point where inaction is itself an action, people have a duty to act when doing so is the right thing to do.
And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
With all of its misery and wretched lies
If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
The Big Machine will just move on
Still we cling afraid we'll fall
Clinging like the memory which haunts us all
-
07-04-2009 #45Originally Posted by Danielle Foxx
FK
-
07-05-2009 #46
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 6
I check my site at least once a day if not 10 times. I have nothing to do with people signing up to comment on my site. You do that through wordpress. If you have tried to sign up and had a problem, send me an e-mail at NotLukeIsBack@yahoo.com and I will personally put you in the system. The only thing that takes some time is your first post goes to moderation and I have to be there to approve it. If I am around, it will go up right away. Drop me a note
xoxo,
Cindi
-
07-05-2009 #47
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Posts
- 6
HI Everyone, I just wanted to tell you that although I let most opinions go on Lukeisback, the one thing we don't use on LIB is racial slurs. So when I saw this post from Danielle today, filled with racial slurs, coupled with her mental illness and being so upset by what goes on there, and her telling us she is lonely and in misery, I think she would be better off not posting on my site. I don't care whether she was being sarcastic or not, her opinions are all over the place which leads me to believe so is her stability. I think she should be taking care of herself, her health and her problems rather than arguing on my site. Cindi
Danielle Foxxx
daniellefoxxx.com
t3gproductionsXXXXXXXXX
98.XXXXXXXXXXX
Submitted on Today at Today
You don’t have as much pull in here as you may think, simply asking me to leave ain’t gonna do it – remember freedom of speech?
Your little shield came over to our side of the world however she got her ass handed to here there, as she is allowing to happen in here, so I guess we are even…
LOL
Get a life and go enjoy your weekend, I am all alone and lonely so i will just sit here and down in my misery, no one wants me.
PS: Just came back from walking my dog. Dude, IMO this neighborhood is full of niggers and spicks, I need to move somewhere else. But then I would have to deal with fucking chinks. God damn it all to hell. Why can’t a dude with tits be in peace in this world. Everywhere I turn is fucking colored people crossbreeding and ruining the place where I live. What would they do next? Let women vote?
-
07-05-2009 #48
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 331
Originally Posted by NotLuke
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HYPOCRITE! Fucking Straight up Hypocrite!
PS: Eat dog shit, shit it out, eat it again then feed it to Jeremy Steele with a baby spoon.
-
07-05-2009 #49
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Potomac, Maryland
- Posts
- 1,269
Originally Posted by NotLuke
-
07-06-2009 #50Originally Posted by NotLuke
Its equally offensive to refer to a transgendered woman as a "a dude with tits", or as a "freak of nature" as it is to refer to an Asian as a chink or a Latin person as a spick. But you allow it.
There is absolutely no evidence that transgender performers cannot be safely screened for STDs the same way as any other performers, yet you allow posters to claim that transgender porn stars are all infected with aids, and should be segregated from the rest of the porn world, and that any one who interacts with them personally, or professionally is automatically infected and also needs to be confined to a porno leper colony. That's really no different or any less irrational than someone saying that the races mixing is wrong or is detrimental to the rest of society. But you permit one and you remove the other.
And even worse than that, you repost forbidden comments here, out of context. So, you have a problem with the language in that post on your board, but no problem using it here as a personal attack.
You can shoot and try to shit on the messenger all you like, but it doesn't change the message, that more and more people are getting. You are allowing hateful ignorant content on your site, that you shouldn't. and will continue to draw fire for it, as you should, until you do something other than turn a blind eye to it.
FK