We Removed Something You Posted
We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow Facebook Community Standards:
You’re Temporarily Blocked From Posting
This temporary block will last 30 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.
You’ve repeatedly posted things that aren’t allowed on Facebook. Read the Facebook Community Standards to learn what kinds of posts aren’t allowed.
[T]he [p51] freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote,
when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. . . .
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).
The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.
Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C.J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944), when he said that “[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks,” New York Times, supra, at 270.
[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry “Foul!” when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [p52] to demonstrate the contrary.
TIME Reveals Its Annual List of the 100 Most Influential People in the World
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.
Enemy of the People: Pleading the First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Published in the American Bar Association Section of Litigation Employment & Labor
Relations Law Newsletter, Spring 2013, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Language on vacation : an olio of orthographical oddities
This temporary block will last 30 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.
See also FAGGOT
See also Fagot
tr.v.fag·ot·ed, fag·ot·ing, fag·otsalsofag·got·ed or fag·got·ing or fag·gots
1. To bind into a fagot; bundle.
2. To decorate with fagoting.
‘Context Is All Important’
Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard University’s law school and author of Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, has given a lot of thought to hate language. “Faggot can be used as viciously or facetiously or ironically or tenderly as nigger,” says Kennedy. “Obviously they have different histories. But they are each verbal symbols and can be deployed or revalued or reinterpreted like any other symbol including the Confederate flag or the swastika.”
He adds, “In a bow to history, I will say that using any of these symbols is presumptively bad. But only presumptively. They can all be put to other uses. Context is all important.”
Part of the context, of course, is where we are as a society. Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, told USA Today in 2007 that “we are in a place where the words traditionally considered the most obscene — sexual and scatological words — are viewed as less and less offensive, while words that are ethnic and religious slurs have increased in offensiveness.”
The more the culture cares what blacks, Hispanics or gays think, Sheidlower said, “the more attuned we are to slurs against them.”
Men belittling men — on a basketball court, in a bar, at a business meeting — is an ancient practice. “Even enlightened men,” says Stuever, “men with many gay friends, men with functional relationships with wives and girlfriends — will demasculinize one another in casual conversation.”
That challenge to manliness is at the heart of the recent NBA incidents. And whether the origin of the Fa-word-meaning today comes from the burning of heretics or the belittling of women (see Origins Of The Fa-Word), there is no positive way to look at it.
In our most popular culture, Stuever says, “nothing is currently more funny to male and female audiences than the subtle anti-gay joke, in which masculinity is threatened by inferences or direct examples of homosexuality. You see it everywhere – Saturday Night Live, sitcoms, movies like The Hangover.”
“They are each verbal symbols and can be deployed or revalued or reinterpreted like any other symbol including the Confederate flag or the swastika.”
“Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur.”
[M]aterial dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas, . . . or that has literary or scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance, may not be branded as obscenity and denied the constitutional protection. Nor may the constitutional status of the material be made to turn on a “weighing” of its social importance against its prurient appeal, for a work cannot be proscribed unless it is “utterly” without social importance.
See also Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 191 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). Followed in, e.g., People v. Bruce, 31 Ill.2d 459, 461, 202 N.E.2d 497, 498 (1964); Trans-Lux Distributing Corp. v. Maryland Bd. of Censors, 240 Md. 98, 104-105, 213 A.2d 235, 238-239 (1965).
The First Amendment is one of the most formidable sources of American Civil Liberties. It includes several guarantees, of which the most important are the “Freedom of Speech” and the “Freedom of Press”. Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a constitutional guaranty under the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States and provisions in many state constitutions, embracing the concept that free discussion is essential to the growth, development, and well being of our free society under a democratic form of government (seeN.A.A.C.P. v Button, supra; Associated Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 20, 89 L Ed 2013, 2030, 65 S Ct 1416 (06/18/45); Parsons v. Age-Herald Publishing Co., 181 ALA 439, 450,461, So 345, 350 (1913)).
Billy bob Bramschers’ petition of First Amendment Retaliation must be considered against the background of a profound national commitment to the principal that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials (see Terminiello v Chicago, 337 US 1, 4, 93 L Ed 1131, 1134, 69 S Ct 894 (05/16/49); DeJonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 365, 81 L Ed 278, 57 S Ct 255 (01/04/37).
To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, Billy bob Bramscher must demonstrate three things. First, that Billy bob Bramscher engaged in protected conduct. This means that Billy bob Bramschers‘ speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the Billy bob Bramscher that would deter “a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by Billy bob Bramschers’ protected conduct.
Citing Rocky Mt Rogues, Inc v. Town of Alpine, 375 Fed Appx 887, 04/19/2010, “Any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including… legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom.”
Citing Worrell v. Henry, 219 F3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir 2000) “The eight circuit’s approach in Helvey resembles one we have adopted in assessing First Amendment Retaliation claims against defendants other than the defendants employer. We have stated that ‘any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom’.” (See also Lackey v County of Bernalillo, 1999 US APP Lexis 75, No 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at **3 (10th Cir 1999)).
In broad terms, the First Amendment protects the right to be free from government abridgment of speech. Retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights is a blackletter constitutional violation. In fact, an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 42 Chap 21 USC § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.
Official retaliation against on who threatens to expose governmental corruption may, in certain circumstances, amount to political persecution warranting relief.
See Hayrapetyan v Mukasey, 534 F3d 1330, 1337 (10th Cir 2008) in re “explaining that persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm by the government itself, or by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”
See Ahang v Gonzales, 426 F3d 540,542 (2nd Cir 2005) in re “Retaliation for opposition to government corruption may… constitute persecution of political opinion.”
See Hasan v Ashcroft, 380 F 3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir 2004) in re exposure of political leader’s corruption is “inherently political.”
See Grava v INS, 205 F3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir 2000) in re whistleblowing against abuse of public trust is necessarily political, even where whistleblower does not espouse political theory.”).
FUCK YOU TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT!
FUCK YOU KARLIE ELIZABETH KLOSS!!
FUCK YOU FACEBOOK!!!
Creator of the Morning, The new rays of morning light remind me of the streams of love that you are sending toward me today. I will meditate on the many facets of your love that sparkle more beautifully than the most brilliant diamond. I will meditate on your compassion, your mercy, your forgiveness, and your faithfulness; they are all reflected in the beauty of your love.
I look out my window and observe the beauty of the trees that reach their limbs up to you in praise. Lord, I lift up my heart, and I lift up my hands to you in praise. You are worthy of my praise.
“The freedom to speak your mind. To worship. To pray without interference. To protest in peace. These rights are still protected by the First Amendment. The freedom to speak one’s mind on issues of the day, exercise religious beliefs, remain educated through a free press, associate with others and petition the government when you have been wronged is just as important today as it was in 1791. If our First Amendment protections are to remain intact, however, it will require courageous individuals who are willing to take a stand in defense of them.”
Cultural references 
Among the world leaders who communicate with Randy in the episode are French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi, Chinese president Hu Jintao, Japanese prime minister Taro Aso, Mexican president Felipe Calderón, and Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen. The episode received some degree of criticism overseas for depicting the wrong leaders for its countries. The episode featured John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia, even though he had been replaced by Kevin Rudd almost eighteen months earlier; according to the Macquarie National News, the episode “has copped some flack on video sharing websites” over the error. The episode also features Vladimir Putin as President of Russia, even though he stepped down in May 2008. The episode also featured Prime Minister of the United KingdomGordon Brown.
THE PARADOX OF OUR TIMES
Is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers
Wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints
We spend more, but we have less.
We have bigger houses, but smaller families
More conveniences, but less time.
We have more degrees, but less sense
More knowledge, but less judgement
More experts, but more problems
More medicines, but less wellness.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.
We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often
We have learnt how to make a living, but not a life.
We have added years to life, but not life to years.
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.
We have conquered outer space, but not inner space.
We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted our soul.
We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice.
We’ve higher incomes, but lower morals.
We’ve become long on quantity but short on quality.
These are the times of tall men, and short character;
Steep profits, and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare,
More leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.
These are the days of two incomes, but more divorces;
Of fancier houses, but broken homes.
It is a time when there is much in the show window, and nothing in the stockroom.
A time when technology can bring this letter to you,
And a time when you can choose,
Either to make a difference …. or just hit, delete.
Hunter, wherever you are, Happy Birthday. Here is one of your favorite poems by W. H. Auden:
Earth, receive an honoured guest:
William Yeats is laid to rest.
Let the Irish vessel lie
Emptied of its poetry.
Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,
Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.
Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.
In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;
Stares from every human face,
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.
Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice.
With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress.
In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountains start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.
It is true that Auden later deleted the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stanzas, but Hunter preferred to have the poem read with those included…