Opinion vs. Name Calling

[House-Of-Leaves]

We all have our opinions, obviously, and I have some very strong ones about our country and our *cough* President. I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there that has some educated opinions, in lieu of petty insults and the like. This isn't a bash on whatever's been put here already...I haven't even read it. It's more...me hoping this board isn't going to be like the other boards I've seen, with people hating Dubya because 'his eyes are too close together, and it's a sign of inbreeding'. I'm looking for opinions on:

Scott Ritter, John Ashcroft, 'First Amendment Zones' (also known as 'Free Speech Zones'), and the like.

[SolarisDX]

1st amendment should not protect speech that is degrading to the character/reputation of another person and is not satire. This speech would contain degrading speech that is untrue, or lies.

Speech degrading another's character that is true should be allowed by all means.

[sixteen97]

I agree with you Solaris. In fact I believe libel and slander are already not protected under the first ammendment.

[VisaFreak]

I agree with SolarisDX

[Freakapotimus]

No matter who's holding the office of the presidency, people will have something to say about him (her?). They'll make fun of his politics, his opinions, his hair, his children, his education, his butt, whatever they can find to mock.

Although it may say something about the person if the only thing they can find to mock is his hair (or whatever).

But lies about a person said/written to mock or degrade are not only rude, but unethical, and should not (and I also believe, do not) fall under first amendment rights protection.

[crazyguy411]

I disagree with all of you. Name calling is an opinion. A good argument is a good opinion with strong supportive facts. A poor agruement is an opinon with weak supportive facts that have little to do with the subject and are usually abstract.

The people don't really hate bush because of the way he talks or looks. Some focus on his past or possiblity of a bad edumacation.

Name calling is a right, a 1st amendment right. If we limit what we can say, they we will limit what we can do. I mean, i am not all for the war on Iraq. It is not finacially wise idea but it is still a logical idea. Getting back to the point, i mean if you say that name calling is wrong and are slanderous remarks. The would not have been the US in the first place. I mean back in the beginning of this fair country, the founders said some harsh stuff and they weren't all true. But they got to the peoples heart and the US had it's independance.

To cut it short, this country was started by name calling with untrue statements and it continues to run by name calling. If no one forms an opinion with untrue facts than they will be no point to find a truth. Than want is the point for us to even think if we have nothing to argue against. It is called democracy.

Everyone has an opinion, let them say what they say. We all have a right, even if the things that are said are stupid or make no sense.

[Freakapotimus]

At 11/22/02 11:01 PM, crazyguy411 wrote: Everyone has an opinion, let them say what they say. We all have a right, even if the things that are said are stupid or make no sense.

Studid and non-sensical is one thing, but slander is another. Lies (non-truths) said about a person can damage a reputation or can get a person fired.

Name-calling, ie telling someone they are a dork, pretty much falls under the stupid category.

Calling someone a vicious slut-whore and telling others that said person is a vicious slut-whore are also two different things.

[Nightshadeplus]

At 11/22/02 11:01 PM, crazyguy411 wrote: I disagree with all of you. Name calling is an opinion. A good argument is a good opinion with strong supportive facts. A poor agruement is an opinon with weak supportive facts that have little to do with the subject and are usually abstract.

The people don't really hate bush because of the way he talks or looks. Some focus on his past or possiblity of a bad edumacation.

Name calling is a right, a 1st amendment right. If we limit what we can say, they we will limit what we can do. I mean, i am not all for the war on Iraq. It is not finacially wise idea but it is still a logical idea. Getting back to the point, i mean if you say that name calling is wrong and are slanderous remarks. The would not have been the US in the first place. I mean back in the beginning of this fair country, the founders said some harsh stuff and they weren't all true. But they got to the peoples heart and the US had it's independance.

To cut it short, this country was started by name calling with untrue statements and it continues to run by name calling. If no one forms an opinion with untrue facts than they will be no point to find a truth. Than want is the point for us to even think if we have nothing to argue against. It is called democracy.

Everyone has an opinion, let them say what they say. We all have a right, even if the things that are said are stupid or make no sense.

It is true that this country lives on lies. This is a country where a president can lie under oath about having an affair and his popularity ratings soar through the roof after he admits he did have an "improper" relationship with an intern.