"tsunami song" on Hot 97 NYC
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,287
Likes: 0
I really don't know which is more painful, reading this thread or listening to the tsunami song.
Why can't we agree that the song offends every fiber of of those who truely care about the tsunami victims and leave it at that. If someone doesn't find it offensive, they obviously don't care.
You've stuped lower that the DJ's with your hatred for each other. Give it a rest.
Why can't we agree that the song offends every fiber of of those who truely care about the tsunami victims and leave it at that. If someone doesn't find it offensive, they obviously don't care.
You've stuped lower that the DJ's with your hatred for each other. Give it a rest.
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,526
Likes: 0
From: South Carolina
Originally Posted by exceltoexcel,Jan 27 2005, 02:03 PM
The FCC is acting illegally because the laws that made the FCC are illegal. You can argue it all you want but only the surpream court can make the judgement. That's why I say I would fight the fines all the way to the surpreme court. Decency laws have been defeated so many times it's ridiculous.
Congress can and does limit our freedom of speech. Laws that restrict speech are routinely upheld by the Court (that would be the US Supreme Court).
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Ugh they have been shot down time and time again when up against the surpreme court. Especially Pornography!
You need to find some case law. I know I can
At this point I don't care about argueing law with people who won't take the time to d simple internet searches to back up there claims while I have three times in this thread alone.
You need to find some case law. I know I can
At this point I don't care about argueing law with people who won't take the time to d simple internet searches to back up there claims while I have three times in this thread alone.
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 3
From: Los Angeles, Miami
Originally Posted by exceltoexcel,Jan 27 2005, 03:15 PM
LOVED THIS SONG IT WAS TOO FUNNY EVERYONE LISTEN TO IT!
ENJOY THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
http://www.kacla.org/longer_hot97_tsunami.mp3
ALL COME INTO THE LIGHT INTO THE LIGHT!!!!!
ENJOY THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
http://www.kacla.org/longer_hot97_tsunami.mp3
ALL COME INTO THE LIGHT INTO THE LIGHT!!!!!
This speaks volumes about you. You are just another clueless racist ignorant that the world can do without.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Case LAW!
But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ''It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
WHAT IS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?
What evil work is done?
DOn't even try to argue this cause if you do you better stop protesting the war now. That's what this guy did and he got slammed for it!
But in Schenck v. United States,16 the first of the post-World War I cases to reach the Court, Justice Holmes, in the opinion of the Court, while upholding convictions for violating the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military service by circulation of leaflets, suggested First Amendment restraints on subsequent punishment as well as prior restraint. ''It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints although to prevent them may have been the main purpose . . . . We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger
WHAT IS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?
What evil work is done?
DOn't even try to argue this cause if you do you better stop protesting the war now. That's what this guy did and he got slammed for it!