"Go %&#@ Yourself" - unless you live in Middleboro...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And how did that get changed... did RIPTA decide it wasn't fair?

A civil-rights movement that included protests and speech that many considered offensive - protected by the same document that I feel *is* the "end all, be all".

Originally Posted by fishbones

I don't think he gets it. Sitting on the back of the bus was never about courtesy. It was about the government being so stupid that they considered blacks to be second class citizens.

No, I don't think you get it. Protections in the Constitution allowed the protests and rallies that help force the government into eliminating segregation. Yet, you want to allow the same "stupid government" that treated blacks as second-class citizens to ignore protections to free speech based on what some arbitrary definition of common sense.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

A civil-rights movement that included protests and speech that many considered offensive - protected by the same document that I feel *is* the "end all, be all".


No, I don't think you get it. Protections in the Constitution allowed the protests and rallies that help force the government into eliminating segregation. Yet, you want to allow the same "stupid government" that treated blacks as second-class citizens to ignore protections to free speech based on what some arbitrary definition of common sense.

No, I get it fine. You said it was courtesy that led them to put blacks at the back of the bus. It wasn't. It was narrow mindedness and racism that did it. By calling it courtesy, you're really diminishing the injustices put upon minorities back then. But if it helps you make your point, go with it.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

No, I get it fine. You said it was courtesy that led them to put blacks at the back of the bus. It wasn't. It was narrow mindedness and racism that did it. By calling it courtesy, you're really diminishing the injustices put upon minorities back then. But if it helps you make your point, go with it.

You're putting the cart before the horse. I never said courtesy led to forcing them to the back of the bus. I said it was perceived as courteous. That same stupid government felt that it was "common sense" that blacks should give up their seats for whites.

A small child can't go into a convenience store and buy a magazine with pictures of hermaphrodites and big $%#&@ chicks getting 3 holes filled.

How is this even applicable? It has nothing related to free speech or any other protect freedom.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You're putting the cart before the horse. I never said courtesy led to forcing them to the back of the bus. I said it was perceived as courteous. That same stupid government felt that it was "common sense" that blacks should give up their seats for whites.

Umm, yeah you did say that. You never said it was perceived as courteous. Read your prior statements.

As for the magazines, how is it applicable? Have you been reading the thread? Those magazines are offensive to a lot of people (like swearing) but they're protected by free speech, so they're allowed to be sold. In your world, because they're protected by free speech, everyone should be able to buy them, no? By making it so that you have to be 18 years old, the government is infringing on your rights.