(I quit reading at "I made liberals have a knee-jerk reaction." Really, now. Want a cookie? And do you also call it a knee-jerk reaction when someone tries to tackle a small child running into 60-mph traffic?)
Spider-Man! This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice! Let die the woman you love - or suffer the little children? Make your choice, Spider-Man, and see how a hero is rewarded!!!
I wonder who told him that making fun of someone is the same as threatening their life.
In all fairness, if all he was going for was to create a knee jerk reaction in the left, then by Jove, he's done it! But if he was trying to create a similar image to the ones the left have been posting about palin, he failed miserably a) because what he posted was in no way the same and b) because it wasn't funny. Some of hte small print at the bottom was a little funny, but whaetver.
Now, in all fairness, after my knee jerk reaction was over, I have said many times in the past that I won't fault a joke and I don't. I don't think he meant it seriously, so that's fine, but it's still not very clever.
I don't pity the man. I wish he could be satisfied with the life he's lived, instead of gunning for Commander-in-Chief. I don't think I have the ability or time to comprehend pity.
I think he'd complain bitterly because he complained bitterly about the effect that it had on his campaign when the media noticed and publicised the fact that many of his followers shouted out, at McCain rallies, "Terrorist" and "Kill Him" - in reference to Senator Obama. He could have taken the opportunity to denounce such behaviour, to elevate the tone, to make his campaign be one of two between equals ... as Obama is a United States Senator and not the caricature his followers have proliferated. But, he didn't.
Any picture, produced during a discussion of United States politics, produced by a person of Caucasian ethnicity, depicting both a person with African heritage and a noose, is under no circumstances considerable to be a joke. It is, under every possibly foreseeable circumstance, a depiction of a crime or an advocation of a crime.
For exactly the same reason I thought the brick was a joke, this is a joke. I am not such a hypocrite as to change my stance just because I have a stronger knee jerk.
It's a bad joke, but it's a joke. I doubt the author meant it.
Now, that he intended it as a joke doesn't necessarily make it okay. In exactly the way that my funny "yelling ire in a crowded theatre joke" isn't okay (or legal) but I won't call it not a joke. I'll just say it was in bad taste. And unlike the brick, doesn't have the benefit of being particularly good at coming off like it's mocking itself.
Note: why is the fire in a crowded theatre example practically universal? If you were sitting around with popcorn geared up to see a movie and some dude shouted fire, wouldn't you look around and probably dismiss him as an ass hole?
"fire in a theatre" originated as an example well before movies existed, in a period of time before occupancy limits existed, in a period of time before a science of pyrologia existed, in a time when there was no thought produced during the design of a building as to how people might exit in the circumstance of a a fire, in a time when many died if a fire in a theatre caught and could not be expeditiously put out.
In short, the analogy existed in a period of time when going to see a play was risky business.
Even today, when the effect of words has become somewhat lessened (It is no longer always reasonable to expect someone to react violently when told 'fuck you, buddy' on the street), the expectation of a reasonable person to need to act swiftly and possibly without regard to the well-being of those around them if they reasonably believe their health or well-being is in danger, is upheld. (they say law is grounded in Latin, but only a German could compose such a sentence as that - practically as wide as the Amazon - with the verb on the far bank.)
Which is to say that any reasonable person, upon being informed that a building they are in is on fire, can be expected to seek immediate exit from that building post-haste. This may reasonably and foreseeably lead to competition for what has suddenly become a scarce and vital resource - space, air, forward movement, distance from reckless panicking animals. United States law (and some other common law and maritime law venues) hold that in such circumstances, making a false claim of imminent danger when it can be reasonably foreseen that such a claim will cause some people to behave recklessly - thereby endangering themselves or others - constitutes a crime in and of itself.
Note: why is the fire in a crowded theatre example practically universal?
Because it's the phrase (or close to it) used as the example by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the Supreme Court case Schenck vs. US. It's the case that has most stringently limited free speech in the US, and as such is important. Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion, and he used the sentence "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," and it's become a classic.
Also, the court case was in 1919. Don't think of modern day small, dark movie theaters, with more than one easy-to-access exit, where it would be reasonably easy to spot a fire or not. Think of something wooden, large, with upper balconies, box seats, no modern fire codes, and well, you get the picture of how this could be dangerous.
As well, the case wasn't just "shouting fire in a crowded theater". He's specifically talking about falsely shouting it, specifically to cause a panic. It's incitement of a riot, intending to cause harm. That's very specific.
I can't help but wonder if you classify both the brick incident and this most recent lynching ad as "jokes" because you don't belong to either of the groups in question.
Also, like the brick incident, there are people are actually advocate doing this to Obama (see McCain's most recent rallies) which, aside from the obvious point that lynching is never funny contributes to the non-jokiness of the whole thing.
I love the way he says he's looking for a knee-jerk reaction like it's some kind of flaw - the NATURAL and RIGHT reaction to filth like this is outraged fury.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:03 pm (UTC)Thiser, That is the definition of "Incitement to a crime".(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:07 pm (UTC)It's in the same category with jokes about using bricks to rape women.
That's not meant to be a slur to you, by the by, but it shows how strongly I feel about crap like this and that.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:29 pm (UTC)He's take it down, now.
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2008/10/13/if-you-came-looking-for-the-enough-posting/
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:29 pm (UTC)http://www.politicalbyline.com/2008/10/13/if-you-came-looking-for-the-enough-posting/
Apparently it's a response to some of the anti-Palin stuff that's doing the rounds. And he thinks that's a valid excuse.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:32 pm (UTC)McCain will be extremely apologetic after the fact, I'm sure, but his campaign is currently the one handing out the pitchforks and torches.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:37 pm (UTC)(I quit reading at "I made liberals have a knee-jerk reaction." Really, now. Want a cookie? And do you also call it a knee-jerk reaction when someone tries to tackle a small child running into 60-mph traffic?)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:44 pm (UTC)(Not biased either way about your answer, just curious.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:44 pm (UTC)In all fairness, if all he was going for was to create a knee jerk reaction in the left, then by Jove, he's done it! But if he was trying to create a similar image to the ones the left have been posting about palin, he failed miserably a) because what he posted was in no way the same and b) because it wasn't funny. Some of hte small print at the bottom was a little funny, but whaetver.
Now, in all fairness, after my knee jerk reaction was over, I have said many times in the past that I won't fault a joke and I don't. I don't think he meant it seriously, so that's fine, but it's still not very clever.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:51 pm (UTC)I think he'd complain bitterly because he complained bitterly about the effect that it had on his campaign when the media noticed and publicised the fact that many of his followers shouted out, at McCain rallies, "Terrorist" and "Kill Him" - in reference to Senator Obama. He could have taken the opportunity to denounce such behaviour, to elevate the tone, to make his campaign be one of two between equals ... as Obama is a United States Senator and not the caricature his followers have proliferated. But, he didn't.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 09:00 pm (UTC)It's a bad joke, but it's a joke. I doubt the author meant it.
Now, that he intended it as a joke doesn't necessarily make it okay. In exactly the way that my funny "yelling ire in a crowded theatre joke" isn't okay (or legal) but I won't call it not a joke. I'll just say it was in bad taste. And unlike the brick, doesn't have the benefit of being particularly good at coming off like it's mocking itself.
Note: why is the fire in a crowded theatre example practically universal? If you were sitting around with popcorn geared up to see a movie and some dude shouted fire, wouldn't you look around and probably dismiss him as an ass hole?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 09:12 pm (UTC)Because it's taken from Holmes's opinion in Schneck v. United States.
It's a bad joke, but it's a joke. I doubt the author meant it.
Not a tenable defense in a US court against an incitement to violence charge.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 09:14 pm (UTC)In short, the analogy existed in a period of time when going to see a play was risky business.
Even today, when the effect of words has become somewhat lessened (It is no longer always reasonable to expect someone to react violently when told 'fuck you, buddy' on the street), the expectation of a reasonable person to need to act swiftly and possibly without regard to the well-being of those around them if they reasonably believe their health or well-being is in danger, is upheld. (they say law is grounded in Latin, but only a German could compose such a sentence as that - practically as wide as the Amazon - with the verb on the far bank.)
Which is to say that any reasonable person, upon being informed that a building they are in is on fire, can be expected to seek immediate exit from that building post-haste. This may reasonably and foreseeably lead to competition for what has suddenly become a scarce and vital resource - space, air, forward movement, distance from reckless panicking animals. United States law (and some other common law and maritime law venues) hold that in such circumstances, making a false claim of imminent danger when it can be reasonably foreseen that such a claim will cause some people to behave recklessly - thereby endangering themselves or others - constitutes a crime in and of itself.
(this is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 09:17 pm (UTC)Because it's the phrase (or close to it) used as the example by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the Supreme Court case Schenck vs. US. It's the case that has most stringently limited free speech in the US, and as such is important. Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion, and he used the sentence "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," and it's become a classic.
Also, the court case was in 1919. Don't think of modern day small, dark movie theaters, with more than one easy-to-access exit, where it would be reasonably easy to spot a fire or not. Think of something wooden, large, with upper balconies, box seats, no modern fire codes, and well, you get the picture of how this could be dangerous.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 11:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 11:02 pm (UTC)But it's also not the same as threatening to lynch someone.
He fails.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 11:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-15 11:21 pm (UTC)Woops, sorry ...
Date: 2008-10-15 11:26 pm (UTC)