BeckyMost important free speech decision of the term
The Supreme Court will hear a case regarding display of religious monuments, and the case is centered right here in Utah. But you might be surprised at what a group wants to display in a Pleasant Grove park.
The New York Times calls it possibly the most important free speech decision of the term .
Thirty miles to the north, in Salt Lake City, adherents of a religion called Summum gather in a wood and metal pyramid hard by Interstate 15 to meditate on their Seven Aphorisms, fortified by an alcoholic sacramental nectar they produce and surrounded by mummified animals.
In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, “similar in size and nature” to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments.
The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument. The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in the case, which could produce the most important free speech decision of the term.
The justices will consider whether a public park open to some donations must accept others as well. In cases involving speeches and leaflets, the courts have generally said that public parks are public forums where the government cannot discriminate among speakers on the basis of what they propose to say. The question of how donated objects should be treated is, however, an open one.
I’ll refer you to the article to read more details of the issues. But, of course, there’s the usual quote from a local official discussing our closed culture.
Mr. Daniels said. “We’re looking at, Does it fit with the heritage of the people of this area?”
What think you, OneUtah readers, should the city be required to display the Seven Aphorisms in this case?
Photo credit: New York Times
November 11th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Yes!
Further, I’m preparing my own plaque which will memorialize Veterans day with the words of Arunthadi Roy:
“Time was when weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured in order to sell weapons.”
Good Morning Becky.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Cav,
Thank you for your service, then and now!
November 11th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Absolutely! If the city allows ANY other religious monuments they should also be required to allow a monument with the Aphorisms. This is something that the religious-right has never seemed to understand. If you allow the promotion of one religion by allowing that religion to use public property for religious monuments then you must allow any and all religions equal access. This case is a no brainer for the Supreme Court since they have ruled in a similar fashion in the past. I personally feel that cities should refrain from allowing any religion to display such monuments on public property. There is plenty of private property for religious groups to use. This is less about religion and more about power and control.
This case is similar in my mind to the Prop. 8 issue in California. Ultimately, marriage has its roots in religion predating most modern faiths. If you have the government recognize one religion’s form of marriage, you MUST recognize every other religion’s form of marriage whether it be gay marriage, polygamy or other… It is best for everyone to not have the government involved with marriage at all. The government needs to stick to establishing non-discriminatory contract law, wherein those rights that are traditionally conferred by legal marriage can be assigned. This way everyone will be happy with the exception of those that desire to have the government pronounce their faith better than others. Again, it’s about power and control.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Okelberries, Do you EVER research ANYTHING before spewing disinformation.
I got bad news for ya. The origin of marriage has ZIPPO to do with religion.
If you must know, religion has attempted to usurp every aspect of society it can in an effort to control people.
Religion has never produced anything that didn’t exist before in a previous religion or the ancestral environment.
The ONLY threat to our freedoms today, is religion and institutions which share the same motivations.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
First question - does Summum have a presence in Pleasant Grove? If not then I see no reason why Pleasant Grove should be required to display their Seven Aphorisms.
Assuming that they have no presence there, this sounds like they decided to take issue with a small city and Pleasant Grove was their pick. If they really wanted to get their aphorisms displayed it would make more sense to display them in a city where they have members - like Salt Lake apparently.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Cliff,
I find it interesting that you are more intent on finding anything you can in my posts to oppose and NEVER, even once recognize when we might agree. Did I even once state that marriage doesn’t have Darwinian roots? Of course the pairing of mates in the animal kingdom is not what we are talking about is it? We are talking about the definition of marriage in the age of man. For some Darwinian reason man kind, even in tribal form without the experience of “modern” religion has regularly attached religious significance to paired mating and thus it is the religious beliefs of these tribes that change the act of procreating or cohabitating by defining it under religion and applying religious parameters.
When we talk about certain species of sparrow that mate for life, we do not insist that they are married. I challenge you to find the earliest anthropological references to marriage and you will see that marriage has almost always been tied to religious belief. This is why marriage has long been called a “rite.” Not to be confused with a “right.”
Once again Cliff, you seem more intent on attacking me than having an actual discussion of the stated issue. Like a fool you have failed to address the actual topic of marriage and instead focused on mating rituals mammalian creatures. I invite you to find a single anthropologic researcher that doesn’t believe that the rite of marriage had significant religious tie for prehistoric man. Unlike you, religion was part of every aspect of pre-historic life.
I fear that your attacks on me are driven by your intense need to stereo type people. You have labeled me as a right wing radical, church boy and white supremacist because it serves your ego and your need for self aggrandizement. Truly, you act no different than a playground bully who purposely tries to find weaknesses in his victims. Unfortunately for you, I am not one that can be bullied. Again I will have to forgive you for you wrongful attacks and misplaced HATE.
Since you seem to know so little about me but profess to know everything. I would invite you to watch the first episode of my Public Access show from Lincoln NE, called The Other Side. Certainly, you will find some new fodder for your cannon in it.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I think RO, with his relegation of State marriage functions to contract law, has hit the nail squarely.
And Cliffy, in his usual style has run off the deep end with his non-sequiteurs.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
C av at 7:54, good morning (I missed you earlier as I was working). I know so few people who even know of Arunthadi Roy. Thank you for the quote. I see Cliff thanked you for your service, so I’m assuming you are a Vet and I most sincerely thank you as well.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
David, one of the principles of the Summum group lives in and has a business in Pleasant Grove. I happen to know him from a long time ago, high school, in fact.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Okelberries,
Forgive me. Please understand, I started this bog to fight the very ideology you represent; religion IN politics, proscribed morality over Constitutional Principles, distortion of the SepAration clause, not to mention your hypocritical support for the illegal war in Iraq.
Lets be adults for a moment, ‘men’, in your vernacular. One example: You pushed the Obama is a Muslim thing, in your most pathetic cheeky way, knowing full well, he is not a Muslim.
You are loyal to an evil master that has torn this Country apart. You have and continue to endorse the murder of innocent people (living outside a womb) .
I stand firmly against your positions and practices, and I will continue to do so until you surrender them.
With that in mind, why on earth would I care to know more about you?
November 11th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Like him or not - you could at least get his positions straight, Cliff.
RO wants politics out of religion, also. That’s why he suggested that the State only issue licenses to domestic partnerships.
Wipe the rage from your eyes and take the time to read. You might learn something.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
jdberger,
RO DOES NOT want religion out of politics. Maybe by some ala carte basis of his choosing, but Christ JD pay attention.
Perhaps you weren’t around when we first met this creep.
The Berry Shitting Chicken has taken down his old ‘LincolnsBlog’ which included tons of posts with religious justifications for political positions.
Heck it even had a whole section on religion.
Now the guy is trying to be mister politics and shed his religious fanaticism because it doesn’t sell anymore. You see, he understands, the religious right just got castrated.
Question: What do you get when you cross a bible thumper and an opportunist?
Answer: On any given day, any and every character in Leviticus
November 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Clarification, Cliff:
I no longer run LincolnsBlog because I NO LONGER LIVE IN LINCOLN, NEBRASKA!!! I did however transport every one of my essays over to UtahFreePress.com, so you can pick through them. Yes, even my essays on religion. Only a few essays were I wrote about local Lincoln, Nebraska politics have been excluded and will be re-added to the new LincolnsBlog site which will be cared for by a friend.
Cliff, if it was your intentions to fight and beat down or in your other words, “decapitate” free thinking non-atheist individuals like myself who don’t dogmatically cling to Party mantras, you certainly have failed. I have bested you at every turn and successful sent you into fits of rage on every subject. With every word people that surround you take another step away and back towards reality. As I’ve told you before, you are serving my purposes perfectly. You are the example that I hold up to other liberals when I say, “do you want to become like this?”
It is my task to ensure that you lose all political allies. You will become the William Ayers to any politician seeking office in this state or elsewhere. The irony is; it will be not my doing but your own. It will be your own words that people like Rocky Anderson read and will be forced to step as far away as possible to avoid being sucked into oblivion. You use words like Evil to describe me but by your own admission have no true expectation of its meaning.
Please remember, it is you that came to me with your profane defamations. I assume that your ego now knows you have picked a fight with an advisory that you cannot win against but your lack of intelligence won’t allow you to understand it.
So let the “hammer” keep falling, Cliff. I will continue to FORGIVE YOU over and over again. Please, note; because I forgive someone for their actions, does not mean that I still won’t use my words and influence to protect other people from you. As with any other Bully, I will not allow your reign of terror to continue.
Everyone!
Please note that after chastising me for failing to do my research, once the Anthropological information about the history of marriage in prehistoric cultures was given, Cliff dropped out of the conversation and went off on another personal attack. Also I would like to point out that Barack Obama had a section on Religion on his web site larger and more involved than anything at LincolnsBlog.com. Though it has been scaled back of late it is still up. Also, I would encourage anyone to watch the video The Other Side at UtahFreePress.com and ask yourselves if this looks like something that a radical right wing Christian, white supremacist would produce and direct.
Again, I forgive you Cliff. Please go in Peace.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Becky,
I have a couple questions for you in line with both your original post and some of your past posts on Prop. 8.
Would you agree that it would be appropriate for a religion that performs gay marriages to file a equal protection/anti-establishment suit in Federal Court to have their gay marriages recognized on par with all other religions?
If it went all the way to the Supreme Court, would you agree with me that the court should rule in favor of the church performing gay marriages?
Also, would you be OK with the government getting out of the sanctioning of all marriages and allowing all groups and religions to define marriage as they see fit?
Cliff seems to be in disagreement with me on this because he rejects the anthropologic foundations of marriage in religion argument and thus the suit would have no standing. He apparently doesn’t believe that churches that perform gay marriages deserve the same legal protection as “straight” churches. As the author of this post, where do you stand?
November 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Non-Atheist” Richard? Do I detect an apology for your religious convictions, or are you denying that religion in preeminent in your political persuasion?
November 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
No Richard, neither I nor any respectable policy maker, minister, politician, scholar or otherwise sane person would advocate “the government getting out of the sanctioning of all marriages and allowing all groups and religions to define marriage as they see fit?”
Do you have any idea what that would mean to women, mothers and children?
November 12th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Richard O,
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the value or not of bringing a lawsuit you suggest. However, I don’t agree the government should get out of the sanctioning of marriages. On the contrary, I think it is the government’s responsibility to establish the legal contractual aspect of marriage. I don’t really care what churches want to do on top of that, but whatever it is, they should have no power to reduce the legal rights of the two parties in the marriage.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Okelberries,
Isn’t it just like a republican to declare victory in the midst of a trouncing. Rove would be proud.
I couldn’t get much through the video. Maybe you could tell us what the point is?
btw There is at least one misspelling on the page.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Becky,
I will assume from your declination that you also have no opinion on the Aphorisms case since both are Establishment (Constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion) and Equal protection (Constitutional Equal Protection under the law of all citizens) cases. It is strange that you would author a post on the subject just to stir up conversation while staying conveniently out of the fray.
Or is it that you don’t wish to go against Master Cliff on an issue?
You do understand that if such a case were successful, the government would be forced to “establish the legal contractual aspect of marriage,” for any marriage rite, including gay marriages, right? While I certainly would like to see the government out of marriage completely, I am a realist and understand that an Equal Protection/Establishment ruling by the S.C. is the next best alternative.
I think the problem that gay rights advocate groups have is that they are so focused on winning the war that they fail to take part in the smaller battles that will eventually bring victory.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:01 am
That is a ridiculous statement. The groundswell of opposition against Prop 8 will likely result in its defeat in 2010, if not before. A judge just opened the door to gay marriage in Conn. These are battles that will ultimately bring victory to the war.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
RO, if you had ever been divorced, you’d understand the importance of codifying the rights and responsibilities under marital contracts.
I have no opinion on your hypothetical case. I do have an opinion on the real Aphorisms case, especially as it has reached SCOTUS and I’ll be most interested to hear the decision. And, RO, nobody tells me how I should think.
I watched a bit of your Lincoln Halloween video. Are you proud of that thing? My opinion of you both professionally and personally has dimished as a result.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Becky, you have to forgive Okelberries for suggesting anyone tells you how to think.
The brains of at least 25% of our species are actually wired exclusively to recognize and serve authority. IOW, in Okelberry takes for granted that everyone must be following some external authority.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
If that were my case, Cliff, I’d still be a Mormon
November 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Becky,
Fair enough, Becky, you won’t speak to hypothetical statements or questions. To be honest, that will truly limit you ability to engage in discussions since hypothetic statements are at the core of philosophy, logical intrigue, broad scientific reasoning and Cliff’s favorite, the Socratic Method. It works like this… If this then that must be true… If that then this must be true … If this then that must be true… Eventually you build a philosophy that is not just a narrow representation of a single issue but something that can logically applied to similar issues. You really will be missing out, Becky.
And yes, Becky… I am proud of my old public access show. Much like this site, I allowed my friends to express themselves completely… Like all art, sometimes it can be a little abrasive. I imagine, you have never been part of or participated in an established counter culture. As such, you probably were taken back by some of the antics. Of course this was merely the first episode, over time a refined and focused my production skills and even eventually produced several commercials for a friend of mine that was running for state senate. Incidentally, he is a life long liberal Democrat. What the video illustrates and you and Cliff missed from it, is the fact that I do not fit Cliffs attempts to stereo type me as a bigot, religious zealot, white supremacist, etc… While I may disagree with people on particular issues, I truly respect people’s opinions, lifestyles and cultures.
Take a look at the categories that Cliff Lyon used for his last post about me, and tell me if you believe I have been accurately depicted.
Laugh, Lying, Racism, Religion, Religious Fundamentalism, Republicans, Richard Okleberry, White Supremacy |
November 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Spare me the lecture, RO. You have used your deductive powers to stretch my meaning.
1. I only referred to your one specific hypothetical question. (Your condescending explanation of IF statements is duly noted.)
2. I only referred to that one video you linked and not your entire body of work, which I’m sure must be stupendous.
3. I don’t know you well enough to make any judgments about those categories. But I do know you can stretch the truth about something (lie) to make your point. You just did it with my comment.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
RO:
“I will assume from your declination” that you agree with me that your statement, above, is ridiculous. :)
November 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
BECKY!
On my way down to VA today after posting to you, I realized something. You may think that I want to do away with marriage contracts all together. This is not true. I essentially want to convert all government sponsored marriages over to domestic partner contracts. Essentially, marriages would stay the same with all afforded benefits, we would simply remove the term marriage from the contract and allow people regardless of gender to enter into these contracts. In essence the government would no longer be in the business of defining marriage. While I imagine you still don’t like my idea, at least now you will know where I’m coming from.
November 12th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
RO - I suspect that the folks here have become so distracted by the pejoratives Cliff levels at you that they haven’t caught that yet.
Both you and I have essentially been saying the same thing.
The proposal essentially kicks a leg from the chair of opposition to State recognition of same sex unions. And if enough States make the change, then the Fed won’t have a choice but to recognize them (after all, the DOMA references MARRIAGE).
November 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Paul,
I am sorry, but there is no declination on my part, only a shortage of time. Also, I notice you are using Paul Mero’s name (of the Sutherland Institute and contributor here) but I don’t believe you to be him. I suspect that you are Cliff “the cowardly” Lyon. As such, your statement doesn’t deserve as much attention as those posted by others. Now here is my response…
The Connecticut ruling does not address the Establishment issue and is only effective in Connecticut. When I say gay rights advocates are ignoring the smaller battles I mean that they are failing to step back and give this issue more perspective and see the other avenues available to them. While, some States may certainly be forced to accept gay marriages, not all will. Certainly, you do not want to live in a country where gays are forced to live in particular states to have all their rights as a married couple afforded to them.
Also, I believe the ground swell you speak of will only entrench those that oppose gay marriage. When “middle” America watches protestors marching through the streets with anti-Christian sayings plastered on signs they take it seriously and begin to accept the opposition view that gay rights advocates are trying to degrade or challenge their traditional values.
To truly have victory in this war, gay rights advocates need to refrain from bullying and try a softer, kinder approach. An approach like the one I have outlined that takes the definition of marriage out of the hands of the government and leaves it up to individual faiths and non-faiths alike to define, is in my mind such an approach.
Also, I believe much of America would understand the Establishment issue concerning marriage more easily. People of faith don’t like to see another faith trampled on because then they fear they will be next. This is the reason the LDS Church supported peyote use for Native Americans in prisons. Of course what has to be decided by the gay community is if this is a war to simply gain equal protection under the law, or is it a war to “normalize” homosexuality through recognition of gay marriage by the government. If it’s the later, then it appears gay marriage opponents may have a much easier time selling their degradation of values message to the public.
BTW: Paul, what’s your real name? You do know that you can be sued for using another person’s name in a post, right? Just out of curiosity, I’m going to shoot Paul Mero a quick email and see if he wrote your post. UtahOne may be turning over IP addresses
November 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
JD,
I know… Sometimes I feel that when you are an opponent for too long, people can’t see when you are an ally on an issue. Perhaps, they would feel better if I turned around and began supporting Prop 8.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Shaking in my boots, already.
Identify your precedent.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Okeldork,
BAM!
Also, posts made by person under someone else’s name could be considered defamatory. For example; if I posted under Cliff Lyon and started talking about molesting children, people reading the post might start to believe that Cliff Lyon was a pedophile and hence his good name might be damaged. There are many more sites that talk about the legality of this issue. I would suggest typing in http://www.google.com into your browser, address window at the top of the screen.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Okeldork,
You’ll have to wait for Cliff or Becky to pull my response out of the Spam Filter.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
ro:
oops! your law suit loses. first, there is no exploitative purpose. second, and perhaps most importantly, no one reading this blog would ever equate “Obama the Paul [Mero]” with Paul. your time is better spent pushing your conservative agendas!
November 12th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Okeldork,
Well I guess I’ll try this again, with few links.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Okeldork,
Also don’t forget that statements made under another’s name can constitute defamation which needs no specific other laws to seek remedy.
Because, you have brought up an interesting subject. I think I will use this to write an essay over at KVNU’s For the People and use this specific incident as an example. Other Bloggers really should know that blogging isn’t a free for all.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
no exploitative purpose, so the statute is not satisfied.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Wrong Okelboss,
Obama the Paul is not me. HA! Call the cops!
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
R.O., I found a great deal of your 4:48 comment to be cogent and sensitive. I do not think the angry acting gets them where they really want to be. I do understand it tho.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
We have about three different threads running on this topic, and some on this one might have missed a really great comment.
It probably deserves a top post. It begins, “Although there seems to be an obsession with the word marriage, the bottom line is that the issue isn’t really about marriage or some specific or singular right attached to marriage. It’s about civil rights. The right not to face institutional discrimination.”
November 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The real question, Jim, isn’t whether RO could win the suit, but whether you could afford to defend it, right?
Lawsuits are expensive, aren’t they, Jim? What would you estimate discovery to cost on this one?
November 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
jd:
I do not have a dog in this fight but, reading through the above, it appears the real question concerns damages. Who in their right mind would spend the money to propound discovery in a case where damages are nominal, at best?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
We should also remember that there is such a thing as criminal defamation. Though I don’t think this instance rises to that level. Certainly, the author’s attempt to use Paul Mero’s name was an attempt to make the reader belief that Paul Mero was actually the author of an anti-Prop. statement. Because I know Paul Mero I was certain the alias was false, however, someone doing a Google search and not being familiar with the antics of this site might read a statement falsely attributed to Paul Mero without ever entering the site. Regardless, the use of his name was an obvious attempt to defame Mr. Mero making a successful suit very likely. I cannot speculate on such damages, but can say as a prominent, well respected member of society and director of the Sutherland Institute, Paul Mero’s name likely has a greater monetary value than any of us here.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
you have to be joking! a successful suit? mero established himself as a public person when he ranted about the quiver nonsense years ago. i can use his name for whatever I want, and you cant stop me. criminal charges? then talk to the cops, if you wish, but i’d bring lots of donuts to keep from being laughed out of the police station!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
You don’t have a dog in this fight, Jim? You’re not Obama the Paul?
Really?
Reeeeaaaallllyyyyy……..
November 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Reeeeaaaallllyyyyy……!!
November 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Okeldork,
I think your last statement is proof that you have an axe to grind against Mr. Mero which certainly speaks to your motivation for defaming him. Apparently, you didn’t read my legal reference above or you would know that regardless of whether Paul Mero is a public figure, you cannot as you say “use his name for whatever you want.” Sorry, but just because you say it, does not make it true. We can all talk about Mr. Mero as long as we are truthful, but we certainly cannot assume his identity, especially to cause him harm nor can we tell lies about him.
As far as buying the donuts, if you would slow down a bit and actually read, I said that I didn’t think this rose to the point of a criminal offense and only was pointing out that it is possible that defamation can reach that point.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Good lord, RO, you can be so anal. I always thought his name referred to Paul McCartney or Saint Paul. I would never have confused his comments with those of Paul Mero. Really. Never.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Not even when the name was “Obama the Paul [Mero]“?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Not even then. The label was clearly a parody, which is legally permissable (remember Bill O’Reilly v Al Franken), and the content was most clearly not Mero.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Paradies are fun. I have no problem with people using my name.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Just don’t misspell words when you do: parodies. Or did you mean Paradise?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I am a dork!
November 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Ok. Your secret’s safe with me.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Something tells me Becky thinks of herself as a comedian.
What a Parody! Did you think that up on your own or did Master Cliff the Cowardly have to help you? You truly are an intellectual genus!
You know, I have been considering making to different documentary films this year, but can’t decide which would be more interesting. Maybe you can help me out.
The first would be a documentary about Logan Canyon. If you have never seen it, it is beautiful and UDOT has had its eyes on it for some time. They would like to make an express way to bear lake. Lots of blasting, very ugly.
The second film idea is a Michael Moore style film about the extreme far left factions of the Democrat Party here in Utah. I find it amazing that right in the middle of such a conservative state, many Democrats seemed to have gone off the deep end . Perhaps out of frustration they have begun outwardly exhibiting hate toward people of faith. Of course Cliff would be a prime example of what I’m talking about and his connection to Rocky Anderson and his phony Human Rights Group would make a perfect center piece. Not to mention he actually received a cash award for his work bringing religion and non-religion together. I mean you can’t make this stuff up. I smell a Sundance nomination.
Since you have become so close with him and have been invited to help in his crusades, I was thinking about adding you and several other contributors as sidebars to the overall story. I mean lets face it; people don’t come hear to read anything Cliff actually writes. Its people like you and Richard W. that help prop him up and give his rants a voice. You must be very proud.
If I decide on the second project would you prefer to voluntarily sit down and do an interview about OneUtah? It would be awesome to pick your brains about some of Cliffs expressed beliefs and sit downs are always better than street interviews for actual content. You’ve seen my work and I’m sure you’d agree that I can make you look gorgeous.
I would also love to hear some of the other opinions of the readers and writers here at OneUtah about which film project would be more interesting to them.
November 13th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Becky,
Could you please proof read that last one for me? I had a four year old in my lap and she dosn’t make much of a copy editor.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
doesn’t That’ll be $30 please.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Oh, sorry, Richard, I totally missed your actual previous comment. I thought you were being funny. You comedian, you. There are quite a few typos. I won’t go there.
I’m just a kidder, not a comedian. But I was serious when I said the name was a parody and, therefore, protected speech. Am I not correct? I’m no lawyer, as you know.
You seem to think Cliff and I actually communicate. I have as much communication with Cliff as I have with you - in these comments. You could hardly call us close. I’m afraid I couldn’t offer any enlightenment for your documentary. I’ll decline the sitdown.
I love Logan Canyon. I’m a Cache Valley girl by birth and I go there whenever I can. I’d say do the canyon topic. I’d be interested to hear your angle.
Let’s see, any more questions? Oh yes, I assure you, you cannot make me gorgeous. I’m too old for that.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Richard, here’s a news report on the Fox News v Franken case. Open and shut case.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
OkelMoore,
I’d be happy to represent Utah’s far left, though I must tell you, there are far more left folks than I.
I have never met Becky. We spoke on the phone once after she agreed to become a OneUtah author.
As you know, I do not require commeters to register or even authenticate. Anyone may post as anyone anytime.
Take careful note of this fact because what it says is YOUR paranoia — making people register on you site — is meaningless. Under conditions of real true freedom, OneUtah seems to be a fairly civil place doesn’t it?
That says a lot about human nature.
All of the protections many Internet people think is important is all bullshit.
OneUtah is proof that when you allow people REAL freedom, they don’t abuse it.
So someone used your name. No harm done, right? They were obvious about it weren’t they?
Ultimately, that was an expression of the affect YOU had on someone.
In three years, no one has ever tried to post using MY name. You should be honored.
Get over yourself. Your kids will be grown up before you know it.
Relax. Life is short.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Becky,
You are absolutely correct that parodies are protected speech. I believe it was the 2 Live Crew, Supreme Court decision that made it so, but I would have to check. Unfortunately I too am not an attorney, but I am one heck of an interviewer. Just ask Cliff about when he came on KVNU, For the People. I helped him put away his hate even if just for a moment and admit that a child in the womb is deserving of human rights. Of course he denied saying it the next day then had to recant it, but still, the air was a little clearer over the Salt Lake Valley for a bit.
You might be surprised how enlightening your participation might be. Of course I would not be interested in any “relationship” you might have with Cliff, but how you feel about some of the positions he has taken and comments he has made, especially against religion. Certainly Cliff has to have some allies around here. There has to be at least a few liberals also interested in “decapitating” people of faith.
Well, maybe we can talk about all that in person some day.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Cliff,
I forgive you Brother. Please let me help you let go of your anger, hatred and bigotry. I’m always here to help.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Richard O. I say, stick with the Logan Canyon Blasting. Maybe your effort can help curb it. Promote a better plan, and I bet you could line up some support from this group. Worth a try, eh?
November 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
ro:
i’d like to be on your show … i’ll kick your repug ass all the way to kolob and back!
November 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Wannabe Paul,
No problem… All you have to do is give me your real name and where you live or work. I’ll arrange the rest. I also hope your reference to kicking my ass is simply a metaphor for you argumentative skills. Or do I now have to give you a lesson about, “fighting words.” You see that IS a criminal offense.
Also, I imagine your reference to Kolob is an assumption on your part that I am LDS. In fact I didn’t even know about Kolob until I say the movie Plan 10 from Outer Space, (one of my favorites.)
November 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
RO, see what I mean by anal? You seem to have a need for the hysterical response like “criminal offense” when you know perfectly well the intent.
Heaven knows I could have misconstrued your statement “sit downs are always better than street interviews for actual content” to mean I might be accosted by you on the street one day. But you wouldn’t really be so stupid, would you, Richard.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Jim is pretty well versed in the law….he understands the Chaplinsky decision.
Further, the parody case you are looking for is Mattel v. MCA Records
Finally, isn’t it “Plan 9 from Outer Space“?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
JD,
Plan 9 was the original. Plan 10 was made by the SLC director that did Rubin and Ed. It’s a spoof on how one of Brigham Young’s wives was actually an alien.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This is the case I was thinking of. It’s from 1994. Not sure if it’s still the most recent precedent though.
November 14th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Becky,
Come now, you call me anal then point out every misspelled word that slips passed my fingers. Let’s be fair. You didn’t worry about my street interview comment because there was nothing in it that posed a physical threat to you. Now if I told you that I was going to “kick your ass,” I imagine you would feel threatened. While I didn’t feel threatened I was merely pointing out that people who let little statements like that slip can easily find themselves in hot water.
Let’s be honest here. If the statement were made towards you by a right wing member of the NRA, you would be picking up the phone to the cops right now! You seem to be taking my every post personally even when it is not directed at you and I think it began when I suggested that you look into the definition of “fair use.” I truly was not trying to admonish or belittle you but only help stay within the law. This is the reason I prefaced that comment with, “a friendly note.”
As far as people belittling others at OneUtah, I would love to see you stand up once to Cliff, when he does it. Of course you might have to spend your entire day criticizing him, which would certainly hurt your status here.
People have a tendency to think that because they are online and using an alias that the normal rules and even laws don’t apply. They should be made aware, especially by a contributor that this is not the case. I invite you to read this post at KVNU For the People by Tyler Riggs about a far less specific threat and how the authorities do take such speech very seriously.
Digesting the investigation into “threats” on the Cache County Attorney’s Office
November 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Every misspelled word? Oh, if only you knew, Richard, how many I’ve let slip by.
I have, in fact, been threatened online by an anonymous poster to the comments at KSL.com, a right-wing NRA member who, when I commented on gun control, told me he wouldn’t need to waste bullets on me, he could kill me with his bare hands. I reported it to KSL and they did nothing. I didn’t report it to the police, but talked it over with my ex-boyfriend-now-just-friend whose career was in law enforcement. He worries for my safety.
I read your link at KVNU and I agree even implied death threats ought to be investigated.
But haven’t we gone far afield of your point; that is, whether or not our anonymous poster Obama The — is violating any law with that name? I think we can agree now he is not in any danger of a lawsuit.
Again, Richard, don’t try to drag me into your conflict with Cliff. You guys can do just fine without my help.