"Monkeys" = $75 fine?
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
- Ryan Salo
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:11 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
"Monkeys" = $75 fine?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 8283.story
Is this disturbing to anyone else?
I have referred to my own kids as monkeys before.
I guess freedom of speech is gone...
Is this disturbing to anyone else?
I have referred to my own kids as monkeys before.
I guess freedom of speech is gone...
Ryan Salo
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:09 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
- Contact:
Well, it's a loaded term given the horrific racism that used that type of analogy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. You can't just be unconscious of the past completely. For example, I had never heard the much more racist version of the rhyme "eeine, meenie, minie moe" and had no idea of it's history.
Still, it's true that having fines for saying something dumb is wrong-headed. I just don't want to live in places with "rules" like that.
Back to the original woman - she's honestly expecting kids to not play in trees on their own property? That's just nutty.
Still, it's true that having fines for saying something dumb is wrong-headed. I just don't want to live in places with "rules" like that.
Back to the original woman - she's honestly expecting kids to not play in trees on their own property? That's just nutty.
-
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
stupid
that's just stupid. the people who passed the ordinance and enforce it don't deserve to exist as professionals who pass ordinances or enforce them. The ordinance obviously doesn't prevent people from playing music too loud, failing to throw out their trash, or tearing up ornamental trees.
-
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:09 am
Yeah, I call my kids monkeys too, but I'm not black and have never had racial slurs that include references to monkeys/apes/gorillas hurled my way, you know? While the woman's intentions were probably innocent, though insensitive, it could look very differently from another point of view.
I do not support the fine, though. It seems they are fining her with the intent to penalize "hate" speech, but this seems to be more of a case of ignorance and thoughtlessness than anything.
I do not support the fine, though. It seems they are fining her with the intent to penalize "hate" speech, but this seems to be more of a case of ignorance and thoughtlessness than anything.
-
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
shortage
there needs to be a concerted effort to educate people to use better words to disparage or criticize people who are behaving badly. Words that aren't gender specific or ethnic specific or race specific.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:42 pm
This reminds me of the Howard Cosell "little monkey" comment as part of his commentary of a play by Alvin Garrett back in 1983. If I recall correctly, many viewed his comment as a racial slur, while others argued that he used the phrase to describe players of a certain stature, of any race/ethnicity.
Intent and context of comments often mean the difference between a percieved slur and an intended compliment or, an intended slur and a percieved compliment.
Use of language is a powerful tool.
Intent and context of comments often mean the difference between a percieved slur and an intended compliment or, an intended slur and a percieved compliment.
Use of language is a powerful tool.
- Ryan Salo
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:11 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:42 pm
"Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Speech can be restricted, if the offensive (inflammatory) language is directed and likely to incite imminent lawless action, then there is the availability of legal action.
An individuals right to "stupidity" is a different question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Speech can be restricted, if the offensive (inflammatory) language is directed and likely to incite imminent lawless action, then there is the availability of legal action.
An individuals right to "stupidity" is a different question.
- Ryan Salo
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:11 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Ryan Salo wrote:Richard,
Do the accidental or intentional racist remarks like the one the lady in IL used fit that definition? Who makes that call? Are only minority or special interest groups protected?
As I understand it, the Brandemburg Test does not specifically apply to racist speech, rather any speech that is likely to result in lawless action.
I would argue, that the woman in IL was not engaging in speech that was directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action, her actions would not appear to meet the Brandenburg Test.
The call - in the US can't the call be made by us all?
In the initial post you wrote "I guess freedom of speech is gone... "
I agree.