NationStates

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:

Okay fair enough, but I'm not advocating for banning libraries, that's stupid. Both you and I should know that. I was just saying that public spaces shouldn't be made into a safe space, libraries at a school was an example. Not all libraries are "safe spaces" therefore they should not be banned.

I honestly don't like it when people attempt to twist my words into something I don't mean.

But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

I could care less, I’m more upset over stuff like a forced walkout, or perhaps forced performance, but I haven’t heard anything in that regard. If the students have a problem with the message they are projecting, than its forced speech, however I haven’t heard of anything to that extent.

Ifreann wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:
Okay fair enough, but I'm not advocating for banning libraries, that's stupid. Both you and I should know that. I was just saying that public spaces shouldn't be made into a safe space, libraries at a school was an example. Not all libraries are "safe spaces" therefore they should not be banned.

I honestly don't like it when people attempt to twist my words into something I don't mean.

But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

Funny how school dress codes are branded "anti-freedom" then.

Ifreann wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:
Okay fair enough, but I'm not advocating for banning libraries, that's stupid. Both you and I should know that. I was just saying that public spaces shouldn't be made into a safe space, libraries at a school was an example. Not all libraries are "safe spaces" therefore they should not be banned.

I honestly don't like it when people attempt to twist my words into something I don't mean.

But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

If you're not a governmental body, yes you can.

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

Where in the First Amendment is an exception made that permits loud speech to be restricted? And why would this exception not permit other kinds of restrictions?

Ifreann wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

Where in the First Amendment is an exception made that permits loud speech to be restricted? And why would this exception not permit other kinds of restrictions?

I said you are supposed to be quiet in a library, but somebody can still be loud. You can't be forced to be quiet.

But, arguing this is really crap. Idk about you but this is a waste of my time. And this isn't what the thread is about. Continue to argue me or whatever, Ifreann. Whatever

Ifreann wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

Where in the First Amendment is an exception made that permits loud speech to be restricted? And why would this exception not permit other kinds of restrictions?

Slippery Slope pal.

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Where in the First Amendment is an exception made that permits loud speech to be restricted? And why would this exception not permit other kinds of restrictions?

I said you are supposed to be quiet in a library, but somebody can still be loud. You can't be forced to be quiet.

But, arguing this is really crap. Idk about you but this is a waste of my time. And this isn't what the thread is about. Continue to argue me or whatever, Ifreann. Whatever

The quietness is the reason i love libraries.

But banning libraries would mean one less place for liberal college students to gather.

Helenija wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:
I said you are supposed to be quiet in a library, but somebody can still be loud. You can't be forced to be quiet.

But, arguing this is really crap. Idk about you but this is a waste of my time. And this isn't what the thread is about. Continue to argue me or whatever, Ifreann. Whatever

The quietness is the reason i love libraries.

But banning libraries would mean one less place for liberal college students to gather.

lol i guess

Ifreann wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:Because they can read the news same as anybody else and because they were literally playing against the town where it occurred.

I mean, sure. If they're a team of idiots maybe they wouldn't know it happened.

Is it normal in America for people to check the local news of a place before travelling there? I suppose this would have to be a pretty new practice, local news wouldn't really have travelled far beyond the locality in the pre-internet era.

If you are going to do something that even a monkey could figure out would be perceived as provocative it would probably be the smart thing to do, yes.

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:But libraries are all safe spaces. You have to be quiet in libraries. Your speech is constrained for the sake of others. Is this not grossly offensive to all lovers of freedom?

Okay, it seems like you were associating as libraries as safe spaces, and I was labeling them as two different things. And yes, you have to be quiet. But, you can still say political, racist, homophobic etc. crap quietly. If we are talking about the volume of what you speak then I agree, to an extent you're speech is supposed be quiet, but the content of what you are speaking(or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be limited because someone happens to be offended by what you say.

As I said before, and I would continue to say, shouting(or even saying it) racist, homophobic, sexist crap is not good, and it is not right, but people can still do it, because of the First Amendment. You also have the right to call someone out if they are saying those things, but you cannot use being offended to limit someone else's free speech(setting up safe spaces)

I feel you'd be asked to leave if the staff of said library were, at any point, aware of what you were saying.

Huntpublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Where in the First Amendment is an exception made that permits loud speech to be restricted? And why would this exception not permit other kinds of restrictions?

I said you are supposed to be quiet in a library, but somebody can still be loud. You can't be forced to be quiet.

Of course you can. You can be ejected.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Is it normal in America for people to check the local news of a place before travelling there? I suppose this would have to be a pretty new practice, local news wouldn't really have travelled far beyond the locality in the pre-internet era.

If you are going to do something that even a monkey could figure out would be perceived as provocative it would probably be the smart thing to do, yes.

Was John Q an especially controversial movie?

Kaggeceria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Is it normal in America for people to check the local news of a place before travelling there? I suppose this would have to be a pretty new practice, local news wouldn't really have travelled far beyond the locality in the pre-internet era.

If you are going to do something that even a monkey could figure out would be perceived as provocative it would probably be the smart thing to do, yes.

So what is your evidence this was deliberately intended to provoke and offend?

So they basically reenacted a scene from a movie, but it was unfortunate timing because of recent events. Sure, that's awkward but I don't think people should make such a big deal out of it.

Why did they choose to do a John Q scene anyway though? That's quite a strange choice, a film from 2002. I'd really like to know what that was all about?

Page wrote:So they basically reenacted a scene from a movie, but it was unfortunate timing because of recent events. Sure, that's awkward but I don't think people should make such a big deal out of it.

Why did they choose to do a John Q scene anyway though? That's quite a strange choice, a film from 2002. I'd really like to know what that was all about?

When I was in a marching band competing in the late 2000s, we were adapating pieces as far apart as Ode to Joy and Jesus Christ Superstar.

What's strange about a 2002 film? That's practically current.