Oh, come on, now. Nobody is wondering if that's the real guy. It's got the comedy and parody tags stamped right on it. Why break balls?>> ^BoneyD:
Firstly, Dave, the floormats were NEVER a problem. That was an excuse used by Toyota to not look in to spending the money on a recall. I can't believe he just parroted that... or was that part of the satire? Seems to me you should at least in some way acknowledge the lie.
And that Prius driver in California may very likely have faked it:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/c
ars-trucks/daily-news/100312-Could-Runaway-Prius-Have-Been-Faked-/
But I can understand not wanting to speak against the guy, lest he attract a libel case.
Although I can acknowledge some comedic timing in this bit, it just safely plays on stereotypes from pre-1950. That's really the best you can do?
(Oh btw if people are wondering, that's not the real Toyoda Akio. )

Firstly, Dave, the floormats were NEVER a problem. That was an excuse used by Toyota to not look in to spending the money on a recall. I can't believe he just parroted that... or was that part of the satire? Seems to me you should at least in some way acknowledge the lie.

And that Prius driver in California may very likely have faked it:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/100312-Could-Runaway-Prius-Have-Been-Faked-/
But I can understand not wanting to speak against the guy, lest he attract a libel case.

Although I can acknowledge some comedic timing in this bit, it just safely plays on stereotypes from pre-1950. That's really the best you can do?

(Oh btw if people are wondering, that's not the real Toyoda Akio. )

As my boss would say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There have been quite a lot of studies that show spinal manipulation to be beneficial, in some cases the best option, for lower back pain, non-whiplash neck pain, and tension headaches. Just because some chiropractors are quacks doesn't mean all chiropractors are quacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164469
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909210
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19028250
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14973958
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420782/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204386
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17369783
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14974063
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16574972
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15782244
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16514329
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15953306
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15266458

[edit: I agree the libel suit is BS]

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

Nope, according to the Federal Court, there's absolutely no requirement for a "news organization" to care at all about being truthful. In fact, the court found that Fox had the right to fire anyone who refused to tell the lies in the organization's script.

All they have to care about is plausible deniability when it comes to slander (or would a recorded broadcast be libel?). Which is why they never state the most questionable/offensive things as fact, but rather by using "some say" type weasel-words.

It's kind of a mind-boggling fact, isn't it? No media organization has any requirement to be honest in any way...

>> ^caiter4:
While I agree that this was a crime, and a horrible act of discrimination, suing McDonalds just makes her look like a gold digger. The manager should be sued, because he said it, not McDonalds. McDonalds never would have done something so libellous. Yet they are suing the thing that will get them the most money, instead of rectifying the act by suing the liable party. How is that helping anything, except making her rich?




Discrimination is out there.

However McDonalds shouldn't allow for pockets of discrimination in their ranks. And if it appears, they should be culpable. Makes total sense to me.

Of all the countless cases of discrimination that go uncontested, you are seriously suggesting she should exercise legal restraint? With her clear evidence in her favour?

Wadever dood.

>> ^caiter4:
While I agree that this was a crime, and a horrible act of discrimination, suing McDonalds just makes her look like a gold digger. The manager should be sued, because he said it, not McDonalds. McDonalds never would have done something so libellous. Yet they are suing the thing that will get them the most money, instead of rectifying the act by suing the liable party. How is that helping anything, except making her rich?


while i'm not a lawyer (nor do i play one on t.v.), i'm pretty sure that since the person was a representative of McD's, and was responding as such, that makes McD's, as a whole, the responsible party.

While I agree that this was a crime, and a horrible act of discrimination, suing McDonalds just makes her look like a gold digger. The manager should be sued, because he said it, not McDonalds. McDonalds never would have done something so libellous. Yet they are suing the thing that will get them the most money, instead of rectifying the act by suing the liable party. How is that helping anything, except making her rich?

I've no problem with Immigrants, hell my ancestors were immigrants. But I have a problem with Immigrants who have migrated illegally.

One, it shows a complete disregard for the rule of law. Two, it degrades the view of other Legal Immigrants who have followed the rule of law. Now, that being said, by all means do every thing you can to petition for proper citizenship just short of breaking the law. This is the American Way, if at first you fail, try, try again. But moving Illegal Aliens to interment camps, and or treating them like dirt is one thing I cannot stand. They should be provided the right of due process. All humans should, no matter their crime, or whether they are citizens or not.

As an outsider this is how I see it. She is inciting an attack from him. They both have motive that much is evident through there short discourse. I refer to she as her group, and he to his group.

They claim to be showing free speech however they stifled the Minute Man group from talking their jive, by jumping up there and inviting violence.

I tend to think it should be treated how Athiest vs Religion debates and arguments are treated. They should have a real debate with a mediator and the whole lot.

I've never been a fan of the minute men, and have always decried their presence near Polling places. Then again I decry any partisan presence near the poling places.

More importantly who gives the Minutemen the right to, as she said, patrol the desert carrying weapons? I am of the mind that this second ammendment usage is not what the Signers had in mind. She should also be aware that calling some one a murderer can be construed as a libel.

Also much respect to the students for sticking it to the man. The man being the white guy on the stage, and the School Suits.

http://immigration.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000777

Uhhh wow, so falsely representing someone can be libel right, or is this just plain out fraud? Or was the whole thing a parody, like both sides? I think I am more confused now.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."... I love that quote, and I will surely repeat it MANY times going forward.


I've used this quote several times and people don't get it. "No, people would be profoundly offended, so there is always a victim." And for the few who do get it, it's just preaching to the choir. I guess that's life in general, though.

Your video, Richard Dawkins Speaks out Against UK Libel Laws, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you for the promote!

In reply to this comment by lavoll:
*promote

Hah, yeah that would have gone down well. I just hope he has the sense to reply to you in a PM. I would hate to be seen as the only bad guy here, because I don't have lady bits.

But it's over and done with now, I'm moving on and those I've talked with do to.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Right on. Though i fear dag will of course reply to my reply. There's none as blind as those who don't want to see.

I didn't even raise the "Why the hell are you referring to these people as females, they petitioned for equal rights, please oblige by those rights" argument! I fear it wouldn't have gone well

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I thank you for your support and that you did not take sides. I agree with you on the libel, but let's just let that thread die.

I've made my peace with the people directly involved and I've had my say, even if it hurt. If you feel strongly about it, which I am grateful for, please hold it private with dag or whoever you are discussing it with. Your post is as good an ending note as any to this whole farcical thing.

Right on. Though i fear dag will of course reply to my reply. There's none as blind as those who don't want to see.

I didn't even raise the "Why the hell are you referring to these people as females, they petitioned for equal rights, please oblige by those rights" argument! I fear it wouldn't have gone well

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I thank you for your support and that you did not take sides. I agree with you on the libel, but let's just let that thread die.

I've made my peace with the people directly involved and I've had my say, even if it hurt. If you feel strongly about it, which I am grateful for, please hold it private with dag or whoever you are discussing it with. Your post is as good an ending note as any to this whole farcical thing.