News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

nfitz said:
Legally ... probably not.

It was clearly sexual assault though, and possibly uttering threats. Hopefully the bigot who did it is jailed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's start jailing every obnoxious fool that says vulgar things to others (that's a good way to clog our prisons, leaving less room for those that actually deserve to be there). And who is actually going to take what was said as a threat? Use your head.
 
Last edited:
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I would imagine no one has an actual right to go up to someone trying to do their job, even in a public space where freedom of expression might reasonably be expected, and act like a jackass with the aim of disrupting what that person is doing. Because ruining the live broadcast and getting attention are what FHRITP is about, right?
 
Shouting obscene language at someone suggesting that they should be raped isn't possible uttering threats?

If I was at a Doug Ford rally, and I shouted "kick him in the balls", I'd expect to be charged.
 
I love how people are turning themselves into a pretzel defending the indefensible. If one believe that FHRITP is such a wholesome, innocent, harm-free statement, type the acronym out. Don't hide behind it. Say it out loud in public as part of polite conversation and say it's "free speech" and see just far one gets away with it.

AoD
 
picard102 said:
So when it's said to a male reporter they are instructing the public to fuck him in his pussy? Obviously not. It's an inane saying meant to disrupt, not violence.
Click to expand...

And somehow disruption requires allusions to female penetrative sex, with a tinge of non-consensualty to it, and only at members of said sex in the public. And if those perpetrators think of nothing to transgress fairly well established societal standards of decorum, just what kind of conclusion shall we come to regarding their character?

AoD
 
Last edited:
I have been staying out of this depressing discussion, but honestly, some of the comments have reached new lows...

So, let me get this straight - a vulgar heckle encouraging non-consensual sex with a woman, created and perpetrated with the objective of disrupting/embarrassing/humiliating/harassing female reporters, somehow doesn't constitute a threat against women merely because random idiots occasionally shout the vulgarity at male reporters? That someone would actually make such a suggestion is simply baffling (and a little scary).
 
What's scary is how much people are reading into offensive words. Trying their hardest to find some sort of evil intent, where simple buffoonery exists, to fit their agenda.
 
Skeezix said:
What, pray tell, is my "agenda"? Please explain this to me, picard.

While you are at it, please explain to us why you are trying so very very hard to explain away something that is intended to demean and harrass women?
Click to expand...

Indeed. If demanding and ensuring civil behaviour in public free of grossly (and yes, grossly - as in unmistakably) abusive comments without a smidgen of worth (yes, worth, because the phrase as discussed is so loaded with importance in and on its' own, right?) is an agenda, so be it. We have laws against less.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
What, pray tell, is my "agenda"? Please explain this to me, picard.

While you are at it, please explain to us why you are trying so very very hard to explain away something that is intended to demean and harrass women?
Click to expand...

Why bother engaging? He has a long history on this board of offering obtuse, sometimes mildly abrasive, libertarian-esque comments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top