Previous Entry Share Next Entry
breeden
ursulav

First Amendment Honey Badgers

At the request of the divine MCA Hogarth (and slightly modified for clarity)

firstamendbadgers
I am SO TIRED of conflation of anyone telling you "shut up, already" with "MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!?!!1!one!"

So very...very...tired....

(Repost at will.)

Dude. What's the FIRST FREAKING WORD in the 1st Amendment?

*consoling pats and cups of tea*

Thanks for the kick-ass honey-badgers. Reblogged.

... fyi I had terrible trouble with this infographic, as I read 'can' as 'is permitted to' rather than 'is able to'.

I'm hearing that, yeah.

This is what I get for trying to be funny...

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
Yes. A thousand times yes!

Corollary: when the world is entirely owned and run by corporate honey badgers, your first amendment rights will remain completely untrampled even when there is nowhere left that you are able to exercise them.

An unpleasant truth. But in such a case, trying to argue that the First Amendment applies will still be inaccurate.

As politics teacher I always stress that point. The German constitution basically says that each person has the right to state its opinion, but what it means is that the state is not allowed to control you in stating it about politics.

it's a defensive right against the state not against people that are equal to you who in a democracy is everybody else. (Except those people with obnoxious amounts of money, who will let you vanish.)

Yup. It's a good summary.

Of course, there is also a tendency among those claiming the 1st amendment gives them right to speak (especially when adding "without consequence" subvocally) to assume everybody is American, and that every website is hosted in America and under American jurisdiction, but that is a different problem.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
OMG yes! And people forget that freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences. Go ahead and say how you think X minority should be controlled/deported/whatever. But it might get you fired, chewed out, a nasty reputation, etc. because freedom of speech doesn't mean you aren't a dick.


And people forget that Freedom of the Press is an American thing.
There are comics/comic books/stories that you cannot publish in England BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO.

Shared it on my facebook soon as I read it.

I continue to have a hard time grasping that some grown-ass adults don't seem to have realized that there are some things you just can't say at work.

Just as an aside... Is the A is SFWA for "Association" or is it for "American"? I always thought the former, but the screaming about "First Amendment" makes me wonder if I was wrong. (It's like British people broguht up on a diet of American cop shows saying things like "I plead the Fifth." The fifth what? Of November? Gunpowder, Treason and Plot? ;)

If I squint and tilt my head, I can sort of see both sides of the argument*. I, as they say, have no dog in this fight. I am not a member of the SFWA, nor am I, so far, eligible to be a member (looking at the petition, that apparently doesn't matter anyway).

On the one side a group are arguing that the appointed Bulletin editor(s) with oversight from the elected president decide on content. Makes sense and is, apparently, they way it has "always been done".

BUT

On the other side another group are arguing that the above system failed (in one year with one editor over three consecutive issues of the Bulletin) and so is proven to not work.

Yes, the petition has so much misogyny and bigotry assosciated with it (the original and the amended mad me twitch badly) that there is no way it would have been acceptable by many many people.

The question is, had a petition been started by an entirely different person, had it called for the original system to be retained, declaring that one mistake (that the editor/authors concerned refused to admit was a mistake and so dug themselves a deeper hole) was not grounds to essentially call all future/potential editors and contributors sexist, racists bigots who need to be kept under control by an unelected group of "right-minded" people, would *that* petition have received the same response?

What I mean is, this response, is it really to the absolute, stripped of all rhetoric, devoid of all emotional language, opposition to such an unelected panel or is it to the original author and their pathetic, idiotic ratings?

Would the members opposed to such a panel be happier with an *elected* panel? Perhaps with them being changed on an opposite cycle to the presidency? Or two editors rather than one?

I just see the whole flap being about who write the petition, and *their* personality/likes/dislikes etc being the focus rather than the actual subject in question.

The President has since said that "[...]the editor of the Bulletin will not have to go to any selection or editorial review board to approve material. [...] there will be regular oversight of the Bulletin to ensure that it is inclusive of and reflects the diversity of all our members, and that it continues to address the changing needs of professional writers." Implying that the regular oversight will not be by a "board", perhaps simply by the President as has, I believe, been the situation all along (including during the storm last year - yes, I followed it and was as furious as the rest of you).

I have read so many blog articles (and subsequent comments) on the subject and some of the digs at people just make no sense to me. Like the ones arguing that Robert Silverberg is contradicting himself if he is against a panel of reviewers deciding what is appropriate but is in favour of a group of people rewriting something to remove/add/make clearer its intent. Being in favour of amending written work to make it more readable/sensible/less inflammatory by the people who will be putting their names to it to say "this is from me, this I agree with" while being against an unrelated handful of people overriding the editor by stating "Oh no, we don't like this, so no-one else will either" are not contradictory stances. If they were, no author would ever get past first draft. Nobody would ever write an article/blog post/email/letter and review/edit/amend it once or twcie to make it more readable, more understandable before hitting send/publish. There'd be a damned sight more flame wars going on than there are now, anyway.

*It's a fucking curse, really. It makes it really difficult, at times, for me to take an uncompromising stance on anything. I can almost ALWAYS see where the other person is coming from if I look hard enough. It can make me a good mediator, but it can also mean I end up with both sides hating me instead :/

You can tell I didn't re-read or edit this, can't you - I have a lovebird trying to get between my fingers and the keyboard. She wants her head skritching.

The version I'm seeing says Congressional Honey Badger "can trample your first amendment rights" and Private Organization Honey Badger "cannot trample your first amendment rights."

It makes sense if I think of it in terms of filing lawsuits: Congressional HB can reasonably be held responsible for trampling my rights, but PO HB cannot.

It's a little confusing if I think in terms of capability. Congressional cannot trample my rights with legal impunity, but PO can.

I'm pretty sure interpretation #1 is what's meant, but interpretation #2 could be misleading.

As always, the art is fantastic. :)

Todd Kincannon, aka "the Honey Badger of American Politics", would probably love seeing those. He's on twitter, I think the name is @Todd_Kincannon

?

Log in

No account? Create an account