Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
heh, that first amendment is such an inconvenience
Quote:
Virginia NAACP Executive Director King Salim Khalfani told the protesters that his group arranged the protest because it took offense to “the abomination that’s on the wall behind us.“ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/VELVGAT28_20090928-131803/296042/ - broken link)
The poster, unfurled over the weekend from the roof of Club Velvet at 15th and East Main streets, is about 8 feet wide by 10 feet tall. Looming over the busy intersection, the poster shows Obama’s face superimposed over that of Heath Ledger, who won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the Joker in the Batman sequel “The Dark Knight.“
heh, that first amendment is such an inconvenience
What does this have to do with the first amendment? Other than that the NAACP was expressing theirs? So why would it be an "inconvenience" in this case?
What does this have to do with the first amendment? Other than that the NAACP was expressing theirs? So why would it be an "inconvenience" in this case?
surely only the most idiotic of moonbats could fail to notice that the NAACP is greatly perturbed - 'inconvenienced,' even - by the strip bar owner's usage of the first amendment in hanging the banner in the first place.
Quote:
I think you are very confused.
project any harder and i can pretty much guarantee you a job in a movie theater.
I did not state I had no comment. I stated that it was a non-issue, i.e. the First Amendment protects this man's right to display the poster just as much as the women within his premises have the right to perform.
surely only the most idiotic of moonbats could fail to notice that the NAACP is greatly perturbed - 'inconvenienced,' even - by the strip bar owner's usage of the first amendment in hanging the banner in the first place.
Yes. They can be perturbed. And because of the 1st Amendment, they can express their perturbation.
Only the most incomprehensibly stupid wingnut could think that the NAACP was calling for the 1st Amendment to be compromised.
If the NAACP is simply exercising their first amendment rights by protesting, then I don't see an issue.
So long as no one vandalizes the place or files a lawsuit demanding the poster to be taken down, then I see no issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
