1st Amendment & Boobs

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by cotton, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    The 1st ammendment and boobs.
     
  2. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    It was pretty funny. I thought he had some reasonable points he could have made and kind of annoyed he got sidetracked with that. He's made a lot of points lately about the irony of a discussion on the first amendment being completely derailed because someone said "boobs". Had he said any of that during the broadcast, I'd have called it a success. It was just awkward and he had sort of an insane look on his face.
     
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    What does someone saying boobs on CNN have to do with the 1st amendment?

    What does any private citizen saying anything to any other private citizen have to do with the 1st amendment?

    The Constitution, free speech and all these protected rights are protected AGAINST government.

    CNN getting huffy that Travis is an idiot isn't a discussion on the 1st Amendment. ESPN hiring, firing, promoting or anything anyone who works for them has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment.


    The Office of the President of the United States, a very prominent government entity, advocating ANY action due to SPEECH is a 1st Amendment issue.

    And Clay knows this. He also knows nobody else in Tennessee does.
     
  4. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Super Moderator

    Yes.

    People arguing the 1st amendment generally have no freaking clue what they are talking about.
     
  5. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Well he really just said he believes in the first amendment (also boobs), not that ESPN was violating it. One could come to the conclusion that since he believes in only those two things he would strongly be in favor of the unrestricted speech being extended into other realms. I'm pretty sure he said something about it being ESPN's prerogative, but if since they had previously shown they weren't about unrestricted speech that they should do something in regards to Jemelle Hill. So I don't think he really said it was a first amendment issue but it's now been a few days since I've watched it and I wasn't paying attention all that closely.
     
  6. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    Eh...you are making the 1st amendment what you want it to be.

    Trump and the media have been in open warfare throughout his campaign and Presidency. A spokesperson saying, "that's a fireable offense, but they won't because FAKE NEWS!" isn't in violation of the 1st Amendment.
     
  7. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I didn't say it's a violation. I said it's an issue.

    it involves government and private entities. You are making my statement what you want it to be.
     
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. You said he made a lot of really good points about the first amendment.

    I'm saying, where?

    I should have quoted just that one liner, but I didn't. I just took the whole thing.
     
  9. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Oh. Well then you are misrepresenting me. He was discussing the first amendment. He said boobs and the discussion was ended because of it. The irony is that he wasn't able to speak freely when discussing a law discussing the freedom to speak freely.
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    There is no irony there. The 1st Amendment doesn't allow anyone to speak freely. At all.

    The 1st Amendment protects speech from GOVERNMENT. CNN is not government, therefore has nothing to do with 1st Amendment. At all. In any way shape for form.

    Now if he had said something that caused him to be censored due to an FTC regulation, he might have had an argument.

    As it stands all he did was do something not at all related to the first amendment, all while tricking people into falsely thinking it does, or that there is irony.

    There isn't.

    CNN censoring Clay Travis has NOTHING to do with the 1st Amendment. Nothing. At all.
     
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    FCC not FTC
     
  12. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    You just said it protects your speech. Hence, it is concerned with your freedom of speech. Hence, restricting someone's speech when discussing it is ironic.
     
  13. knoxvol

    knoxvol Member

    Who is Clay Travis?
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    No. Incorrect. A hundred times incorrect. Freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment apply ONLY when one party is government. It isn't just speech. It is speech AND one party is government.

    If no parties are government there is NO freedom of speech. There is NO protection by the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment does not apply.

    That's because there is no freedom of speech between two private entities. There is only freedom of speech FROM government intervention.
     
  15. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Oh. Well there's my mistake. Until you just now freaking informed me in this thread I thought ESPN and CNN were governmental bodies. How silly of me.
     
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    No, your mistake was thinking his "points" relate to the first amendment. They don't. That the discussion was ironic. It wasn't. Not even Alanis Morrisette ironic. And that just taking about "speech" somehow also means talking about freedom of speech. It is necessary to the 1st amendment. But not sufficient.
     
  17. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    I said he was discussing the first amendment. He mentioned the first amendment. Thus he was discussing it, regardless of any mention of the government. I'm sorry you want me to be wrong so badly.
     
  18. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Violence by demonstrators protesting police violence is in no way ironic, because demonstrators are not police.
     
  19. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It isn't wanting you to be wrong. You simply are. I want you to be right, thus this discussion. If I wanted you to simply be wrong a lot, I wouldn't comment.

    Him mentioning or discussing the 1st Amendment doesn't mean hems actually discussing the first amendment.

    "Waffles, tacos, bourbon, ice, first amendment, football." The fact that that quoted sentence contains the words "first amendment" DOES NOT mean it is a discussion about the 1st amendment.

    You say he is discussing the first amendment, and not just "speech." I say, "where?"
     
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Correct. Irony implies comedy. Violence does not.
     

Share This Page