Posted on 04/09/2008 4:59:08 PM PDT by DGHoodini
Hyperbole...”might”....This is not about theoretical extremes, it’s about real world/real time cause and effect. Injury *has* been sustained. The real life plaintiffs, are seeking redress for the harm done them. The harm doner them was triggered by the victim wearing the merchandise(shirt) of one rapper, by the fans and supporters of another rapper, who were antagonistic of the other. These fans, diectly influenced by the verbal war, attacked the victim based upon the fact that he was wearing the other rappers shirt. Violence was done based specifically on the effect of the rappers musical violence.
They are going to lose. It’s art. It’s protected. The case has no merit.
Don’t bet your rent money on that. ;)
So, just who do you propose should be responsible for determining what constitutes “acceptable” speech and what limits should be placed on our INALIENABLE rights? You? No thanks.
Here’s another question. Do you think that it is ok that some places in the US require that citizens be required to get permission to bear arms, or that “assault” weapons are not allowed, when the Constitution plainly states that the right to bear arms is a fundamental, inalienable right? Any rational conservative would say that this requirement is unconstitutional and a violation of the second amendment. Yet this is exactly what you are proposing be done in regards to the first amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.