Time to face fact

[Patler]

I don't normally read anything from HH anymore, as he is the only person that I have on my ignore list. Nevertheless, I decided to click "View Post" to see what all of the hullabaloo was about.

HH, are you really as foolish as you are making yourself out to be?

There is a huge difference between black humor about a sensitive issue and what you have done. The actual video of Kennedy's head exploding will never be funny to most people, not in any way shape or form. Yes, at some point a side of humor may evolve from the event, references to it, cartoons about it, etc.; but not the actual detailed, slow motion video of the killing. That will never be funny to any but the few depraved odd individuals, no matter how it is used.

BIG, BIG difference between a cartoon, and an actual video of the event.

You asked when it would no longer be too soon for jokes about the assassination. Some things will never be funny to the people who remember them and experienced them, so it is too soon until most of the contemporaries are gone. Even then, the actual video, colorized, enhanced and slowed to gruesome detail will still not be funny to most.

There are often humorous comments tied to Lincolns assassination, but if a gruesome video existed of the actual event, I doubt any self-respecting humorist would use it.

An actual pink mist video will never be funny to most people, even when desensitized to what it shows. A cartoon about it, perhaps. but not the real life video.

[Patler]

It is Friday and I am still not facing fact

I am currently facing Nort.

And the NFL is facing Tort.

I wasn't going to admit this,....but

The day the thread came up, I glanced at the title "Time to face fact", and mistook the "c" in "fact" for an "r". I figured the thread was headed to the Garbage Can!

[Guiness]

Dude, you ARE a prick but you don't have to be. I can feel the goodness in you. You can be turned.

Harlan, IT'S NOT FUNNY in any way, shape, or form. You are clever enough to make your point in other ways. Take a step toward the good side of The Force.

Take it down.

So...did everyone see the tweet post showing doggy biscuits on Vick's table, and know he has admitted to owning a dog? There's a can of worms!

[Patler]

So...did everyone see the tweet post showing doggy biscuits on Vick's table, and know he has admitted to owning a dog? There's a can of worms!

Originally, I think he was forbidden from owning a dog. But, I have a recollection of him arguing to the court that it was unfair to his kids, to deny them from having a pet. Of course, he could have always gotten a cat for them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see the joke comparing Kennedy assasination analysis with "physics" analysis of hit on a QB was censored.

Many of the same people who criticize Muslims for demanding censorship of a video on the internet turn around and demand censorship when something bothers them. The .gif of the Zapruder film shows clip of a 60-year-old scene that people have seen hundreds of times, so it is a cultural icon. That's why it is a fat target for humor. Sick humor that falls flat should not be the target of censorship. I am glad the U.S. has not bent to pressure and censored the "Innocense of Muslims" on the internet.

I am very sorry that this website does not have respect for free speech.

[MadtownPacker]

I myself didnt take down the image. But I found what you posted and all I can say is fuck you and your freedom of speech talk. That was NOT cool at all. Everyone checked your ass so nothing for me to do. You could have put a link saying it was some highly offensive shit. Asshole.

[George Cumby]

I myself didnt take down the image. But I found what you posted and all I can say is fuck you and your freedom of speech talk. That was NOT cool at all. Everyone checked your ass so nothing for me to do. You could have put a link saying it was some highly offensive shit. Asshole.

MTP is correct.

Constitutional Law 101:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about private parties. The BoR protects the people from the Government, not other people.

[mraynrand]

MTP is correct.

Constitutional Law 101:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about private parties. The BoR protects the people from the Government, not other people.

Hey, what's with all this political talk? I come to Packerrats for football, not politics!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing about private parties. The BoR protects the people from the Government, not other people.

It's not a question of legal rights, it's a question of values. Everyone accepts that private organizations can set their own guidelines and standards. I wouldn't come in here and post beaver shots because I respect the guidelines. By what standards is posting the 1000x seen Zapruder clip as part of a gag censorable in this forum? None. It was an on-topic parody. It upset some people. Those people were not content to criticize, they demanded it be removed. And some censor took the gutless path.

Youtube would certainly be within their legal rights to remove "The Innocence of Muslims" video out of sensitivity to people's feelings. But they have decided to respect the spirit of free speech. It's important to stand up for tolerance. I'm glad our government is not joining the U.N. demand for greater censorship.

You find out whether free speech is allowed when somebody posts something disturbing. It's the offensive free speech that matters. Everybody is cool when the other guy is offended, in fact many call the Muslims "primitive" and "crazy" when they demand censorship of religous mockery. Different story when shoe is on the other foot.

[Patler]

I see the joke comparing Kennedy assasination analysis with "physics" analysis of hit on a QB was censored.

Many of the same people who criticize Muslims for demanding censorship of a video on the internet turn around and demand censorship when something bothers them. The .gif of the Zapruder film shows clip of a 60-year-old scene that people have seen hundreds of times, so it is a cultural icon. That's why it is a fat target for humor. Sick humor that falls flat should not be the target of censorship. I am glad the U.S. has not bent to pressure and censored the "Innocense of Muslims" on the internet.

I am very sorry that this website does not have respect for free speech.

My gosh, you really do not see the difference between the Seinfeld parody of the Warren Commission report, and your use of the ENHANCED Zapruder footage of the actual murder??? Had you been sufficiently clever/creative to put together a description along the same lines as Seinfeld, an actual parody, most of us would likely have chuckled.

Use of the actual footage is not funny. Stories about it might be. Besides, the gif you posted was not the Zapruder footage that most of us have seen many times. The enlarged, colorized, enhanced, slow motion footage you posted is much more offensive than even the original footage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My gosh, you really do not see the difference between the Seinfeld parody of the Warren Commission report, and your use of the ENHANCED Zapruder footage of the actual murder??? Had you been sufficiently clever/creative to put together a description along the same lines as Seinfeld, an actual parody, most of us would likely have chuckled.

No one suggested that you should think it is funny. As I said, I accept the condemnation. Black humor jokes quite often become groaners. My issue is censorship.

[Patler]

It's not a question of legal rights, it's a question of values. Everyone accepts that private organizations can set their own guidelines and standards. I wouldn't come in here and post beaver shots because I respect the guidelines. By what standards is posting the 1000x seen Zapruder clip as part of a gag censorable in this forum? None. It was an on-topic parody. It upset some people. Those people were not content to criticize, they demanded it be removed. And some censor took the gutless path.

Youtube would certainly be within their legal rights to remove "The Innocence of Muslims" video out of sensitivity to people's feelings. But they have decided to respect the spirit of free speech. It's important to stand up for tolerance. I'm glad our government is not joining the U.N. demand for greater censorship.

You find out whether free speech is allowed when somebody posts something disturbing. It's the offensive free speech that matters. Everybody is cool when the other guy is offended, in fact many call the Muslims "primitive" and "crazy" when they demand censorship of religous mockery. Different story when shoe is on the other foot.

No, yours was definitely not a parody. A parody is an original creation to mock, trivialize or otherwise make fun of something that was original. You simply posted the original. Where was the parody?

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, yours was definitely not a parody. A parody is an original creation to mock, trivialize or otherwise make fun of something that was original. You simply posted the original. Where was the parody?

The parody was not of the Zapuder clip, that was just a prop. The parody was of Zool and others who were arguing the head movement and physics of the hit on the QB. I found that argument pretty silly, especially since you couldn't really see enough detail of what happened. And even if they had a good argument, I enjoyed making fun of their earnestness. And I still think the joke was funny, even if I laugh alone.

[Patler]

HH;
You seem to be suggesting that free speech means saying/publishing whatever you want to, wherever you want to, whenever you want to. It never has meant that, and never will.

[Patler]

The parody was not of the Zapuder clip, that was just a prop. The parody was of Zool and others who were arguing the head movement and physics of the hit on the QB. I found that argument pretty silly, especially since you couldn't really see enough detail of what happened. And even if they had a good argument, I enjoyed making fun of their earnestness. And I still think the joke was funny, even if I laugh alone.

If it was just a prop, and not your "speech", where is the censorship?