2006-07-11
My Mom Is Not a Whore! Take That!
Imagine a world where people whose moms get called whores respond in ways that don't horrify their moms. In such a world, maybe France would have won the world cup. The answer, of course, is to render these fightin' words meaningless via casual use.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1227435,00.html
Well, I suppose if you're mum's the type of person who applauds answering words with violence... you might belong to a religion that advocates killing cartoonists!
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-07-12T182703Z_01_L12760960_RTRUKOC_0_US-SOCCER-WORLD-ZIDANE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Finally he speaks. His story: He appologizes to "the fans" for the head-butting, that does not regret it, because regretting it "would mean that he (Materazzi) was right to say what he said." Well, in free societies (ie, modern civilization), we do enjoy the right to call each other's mom's whores. And to blaspheme. We do not have a right to impose physical harm on others as retaliation for "offensive" comments. In other words: citizens in a free society do not exists as individual, independant judges who adjudicate each other's comments, and mete physical punishment as penalties for what any one of us may judge "offensive."
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with punching someone that offends you. Free speech doesn't protect people from the consequences of what they say. The constitutional idea of free speech is to protect political expression. Calling someone's mother a whore is not political expression seeking government redress of grievances. Calling someone's mother a whore is an insult seeking a response.
I think he got exactly what he asked for, even if he's not happy with what he got.
Thomas: I am sad that a fellow American would have this view. "The First Amendment" merely protects Americans from the government taking action in response to an expression, and it makes no stipulation for what is "political." What are you calling for, here? Physical assault is illegal. Should it be? Would you have a exception, for when the assaulter feels "offended" by the expression of an idea that is "not political"?
How would you word such a law? How physical can the offended person be? Can he use tools? How many hits can he take? By what measure would a judge or jury gage the "offense"? What if I tell a Jesus joke? Can you bash the back of my head with a tire iron? What if I call my own mom a whore? Can you take "offense" on behalf of all motherhood?
Free Speech only exists if we citizens permit each other to freely express ideas that we find offensive, which is to say, take no punative measure against those who express ideas that offend us. The First Amendment is only one neccessary component of a free socieity. If more people adopt your view here, Thomas, we will have to worry about what we say: somebody can take "offense", and can legally retaliate with an action that would otherwise qualify as an assault.
Imagine if this soccer player weren't retiring. Now that he's made such a show of violent temper, how many loud insults he'd endure against his mom and sister. If he wanted to live in a world where his mom never got called a whore, he picked exactly the worse sort of response. Instead of getting kicked out of the game and placing his team at a disadvantage at its most crucial moment, imagine if he'd just returned the insult... and with a smile on his face: "At least my dad's not a fag" and "I bet your dad does to your mom what Kobe did to that hotel clerk." If he only would have consulted with me, he might have gotten his *opponent* to perform a My-Dad-Ain't-No-Fag head butt of his own, and put the Italians at a disadvantage.
"Would you have a exception, for when the assaulter feels "offended" by the expression of an idea that is "not political"?"
Many people have an overly-broad view of what "..abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." They think it protects all form of speech. It does not.
From Freedom of Expression (best I could find with very little googling) "Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition."
Post a Comment