kidding? Give me a second here...
Okay, give me another second. I must point out that I read this litterally the first time, and didn't see it as an explantive. It's the humor side of me. Now on with the show.
Wonderful for you, I guess I missed that under your name tag when I responded to your short one liner.
But I'm not sure how that is relevant anyway, except that anyone in journalism should know better than most that Freedom of expression does not give a person the right to say anything they want. A good percentage of "news" comes in the form of reporting on just those types of violations. So I'm really not sure why you argued with me to begin with.
Look buddy. I made I statement as part of a paragraph of writing to someone else. You jumped in and shot out a one liner "No actually it DOES." Caps and all. How exactly was I supposed to weed your understanding of Freedom of Speech from the average dumb American, aye?
This is of course precious. I'm the one laying down long arguments and replies to back up my opinion, and the other party was more or less doing the same. They may not have been good arguments, but they were closer to a debate than making a quick reply telling the other party that they're wrong, which is what you jumped in and did. How about you pick apart the pieces of my statement that you disagree with and explain why I'm wrong?
Recap:
I believe I made pretty clear what I didn't like.
1. I took issue with his opinion of suicidal people, and his spreading of that misinformation (scientifically proven).
2. I said my response was entirely to make a counter point, to tell him He's wrong to slap a global sticker on a large group of such people.
3. There was no legal issue involved in the least.
4. Then he decided that I was somehow suppressing his opinion, and that he was only exercising his Legal right to freedom of speech.
I'm sorry, but that part of the constitution has nothing to do with a discussion between two civilians on the internet in which one person tells the other they are wrong. Do you not believe this to be true?
I have a fucking journalism degree,
you aren't teaching me anything on slander/liable.
But I'm not sure how that is relevant anyway, except that anyone in journalism should know better than most that Freedom of expression does not give a person the right to say anything they want. A good percentage of "news" comes in the form of reporting on just those types of violations. So I'm really not sure why you argued with me to begin with.
I thought you guys were intelligent enough that I didn't have to explain those few exceptions.
It's like you guys don't actually want to debate, you want to play a childish game of "GOTCHA!"
ESPECIALLY since in this case you were calling them out for saying something that you don't LIKE, vs something like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I believe I made pretty clear what I didn't like.
1. I took issue with his opinion of suicidal people, and his spreading of that misinformation (scientifically proven).
2. I said my response was entirely to make a counter point, to tell him He's wrong to slap a global sticker on a large group of such people.
3. There was no legal issue involved in the least.
4. Then he decided that I was somehow suppressing his opinion, and that he was only exercising his Legal right to freedom of speech.
I'm sorry, but that part of the constitution has nothing to do with a discussion between two civilians on the internet in which one person tells the other they are wrong. Do you not believe this to be true?
Comment