Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark Up!

[Rumpole]

The US Courts have just affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech including but not limited to the right to insult or disparage or whatever. Before I post the relevant article, let's do some revision of the faulty logic and crap law of Fatso Woon, currently employed by some taxpayer funded educational institution in Fascist Sinkieland:

I came across this piece of crap while surfing the internet.

As a student of this fatso and an outstanding one, he can't deny it, as otherwise he wouldn't have awarded me a prize and it is not a kuching kurang one, I am appalled at the faulty logic that he has espoused in the first part of his speech. I will not go into the Porn Masala saga (the second part of his speech) as I know nothing about it.

The premise that minorities need to be protected from disparaging comments is seriously flawed. Downright nonsense would be a more accurate way of putting it.

Here's some rebuttals:

1) If I say many Indians stink (I mean literally), it is a disparaging comment, but it is also a statement that is largely true and many Chinese will agree with me. Should an Indian feel "threatened" by such a comment, he should go see a doctor, for clearly he suffers from having irrational fears as no violence has been mentioned nor incited. The freedom of speech of the majority or for that matter any segment of society should not be stifled simply because some segment of society may "feel" threatened. Threats of violence, objectively in the sense that a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would interpret the words and context as such, are another matter altogether.

2) The whites in America and the Germans suffer from a guilt complex in relation to the blacks and Jews respectively. That is historical. The Chinese in Singapore and Southeast Asia do not and have not anything to warrant such a complex. We did not enslave nor have we gassed them. The Indians either came of their own free will or were brought in en masse as convict labour by the evil drug trafficking British.

3) It is one thing to say that some comments are taboo and another to render them illegal. You may suffer social disapproval or even ostracisation should you make a disparaging comment against blacks in America, but it is not illegal and the Constitution will protect your freedom of speech though not from the power of the mob. Therein lies the difference Mister Fatso Woon.

4) If indeed making disparaging comments about minorities (not just racial ones) is a crime. Lee Old Fart and some PAP ministers are the worst offenders.

5) The dog should not be blindly applauded for biting back. If there is truth in the disparaging comments, the dog should be encouraged to get rid of such bad behaviour for the good of all. In the event that the dog does not acknowledge that such behaviour is bad and continues as before, the answer is not to stifle free speech but to encourage more disparaging comments at least those that are supported by the facts.

6) As for Tommy Koh, any ambassador to the UN who fails to encourage or procure his country's ratification of the UN Convention on Political and Civil Rights, should be thoroughly ashamed and keep his bloody mouth shut on such topics.

[video=youtube;cPNEGaSiffY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNEGaSiffY[/video]

 

[Rumpole]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

Asian-American rock band The Slants have won a US appeals court case, striking down part of a federal law that barred the registration of offensive trademarks.

In its decision vacating the US Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register the band’s name, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the ban violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Washington, DC, court acknowledged its ruling could lead to more hateful trademarks in the future.

“We recognise that invalidating this provision may lead to the wider registration of marks that offend vulnerable communities,” Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said in the majority opinion. Twelve judges took part in hearing the case.

“Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others,” she wrote.

“Even when speech inflict great pain,” the Constitution protects it “to ensure that we do not stifle public debate”.

The Portland, Oregon-based band, which plays “Chinatown dance rock”, appealed because the trademark agency had rejected its name for a trademark twice since 2010 on the grounds it disparages Asians.

Slants front man Simon Tam argued the band adopted the name as a way to reclaim the racial slur. In an interview Tuesday, he rejected any concern that the ruling would open the floodgates for racism or hate speech.

“People are going to be racist whether or not they have a trademark registration.”

Tam, who formed the band in 2006, has long argued that the band chose the name as a statement of racial and cultural pride.

“This band was created specifically to celebrate Asian-American culture and kind of share that perspective — our slant on life, if you will,” Tam said.

“It feels kind of unreal,” he said. “Not only that we won, because it’s been six years in the making, but that because of our band we in some way have expanded First Amendment rights for millions of Americans.”

In April, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel upheld the agency’s rejection, but the court then vacated that decision in order to tackle the prickly constitutional question.

Tuesday’s ruling sends the case back to the trademark office for further proceedings.

Interest in the case is high because it raises similar issues to an ongoing appeal by the Washington Redskins in a different court.

The American football team is seeking to overturn a decision last year by the trademark office to cancel several of the team’s trademarks on the grounds that they disparage Native Americans.

The Washington Redskins attorney, Lisa Blatt, said she was pleased with the court’s ruling but declined further comment.

University of Notre Dame Law School professor Mark McKenna said Tuesday's ruling is very likely to be appealed to the US Supreme Court, whose own ruling “will also control the fate of the Redskins marks.”

The US Department of Justice, which argued the case for the trademark office, said it was reviewing the decision.

http://www.scmp.com/news/world/arti...nts-win-landmark-ruling-against-ban-offensive

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

He should register "the slopes" too before Clarkson grabs the name.

 

[eatshitndie]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

He should register "the slopes" too before Clarkson grabs the name.

and "the slits."

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

and "the slits."

... and you should register "The Shits".

 

[eatshitndie]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

... and you should register "The Shits".

the slants, soon to be the slopes, then the slits, but no shit.

 

[Froggy]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

Wonder if Shitskin had been registered???

 

[Rumpole]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

[video=youtube;VlAhvuFPaU8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlAhvuFPaU8[/video]

 

[mojito]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

Hehe slitty eyed chinks!

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

[video=youtube;VlAhvuFPaU8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlAhvuFPaU8[/video]

The video confirms that chinks can't dance, can't sing and are butt ugly.

 

[Hans168]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

is fatso churning out bums??

 

[frenchbriefs]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

what does minority or race have anything to do with free speech?

 

[yellowarse]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

The video confirms that chinks can't dance, can't sing and are butt ugly.

And when could rockers ever dance or sing well, or even look like they'd least showered once a week?

 

[jw5]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

You should register "samsters". :p

He should register "the slopes" too before Clarkson grabs the name.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

And when could rockers ever dance or sing well, or even look like they'd least showered once a week?

That lot are extremely good looking.

 

[Rumpole]

Re: Fat Walter Knows Nuts About American Constitutional Law Should Just Shut the Fark

I came across this piece of crap while surfing the internet.

As a student of this fatso and an outstanding one, he can't deny it, as otherwise he wouldn't have awarded me a prize and it is not a kuching kurang one, I am appalled at the faulty logic that he has espoused in the first part of his speech. I will not go into the Porn Masala saga (the second part of his speech) as I know nothing about it.

The premise that minorities need to be protected from disparaging comments is seriously flawed. Downright nonsense would be a more accurate way of putting it.

Here's some rebuttals:

1) If I say many Indians stink (I mean literally), it is a disparaging comment, but it is also a statement that is largely true and many Chinese will agree with me. Should an Indian feel "threatened" by such a comment, he should go see a doctor, for clearly he suffers from having irrational fears as no violence has been mentioned nor incited. The freedom of speech of the majority or for that matter any segment of society should not be stifled simply because some segment of society may "feel" threatened. Threats of violence, objectively in the sense that a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would interpret the words and context as such, are another matter altogether.

2) ...............

Fat Wallie has not understood his J.S. Mill and failed to distinguish between freedom of action and freedom of opinion and expression .............. analytical abilities not good enough .............

[video=youtube;QWZrHUvhXcw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWZrHUvhXcw&list=PLLOmTdiC1GorWZHdxnXGfITU3rskTTAHp&index=19[/video]