Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(106)
-
▼
March
(32)
- Women in politics
- Kids and cops
- Hey Maeve,
- The President's budget
- The credit crisis explained
- The Supreme Court and schools
- My friend is working on this case
- Iraq vs. Afghanistan
- The new fireside chat?
- What's going to happen to the Guantanamo detainees?
- AIG
- Pictures from investigation of drug murders
- The military-industrial complex
- Particularly for Maeve
- Especially for Dania
- Kids and homelessness
- Do you know who Warren Buffet is?
- You are all depressing me.
- Blowing up the Senate
- It's finally here!
- Obama's interpretation of signing statements
- Prop 8 hearing
- New executive order
- It's looking good for Prop 8
- California courts deciding on Prop 8
- Obama's FEMA nominee
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Hillary Clinton's world tour
- Frances Perkins
- An increased bureaucracy?
- How the economic downturn happened
- Op-Ed about filibusters
-
▼
March
(32)
1 comment:
After reading this article, I can conclude for myself that the situation is pretty ridiculous. Kalman chose a relatively decent and arguably respectful title for his company; much better than "Satanic Butt Slayers" anyway. Who is the one who decides what is profane or not? This reminds me of something we talked about in class a long time ago. Obscenity is a subjective concept definitely, and it is decided by the standards and norms within a certain community. The thing is that in the United States, types of communities differ greatly and are all across the liberal-conservative spectrum. For example, something that is oscene in a reserved midwest town surely would not be in San Francisco. At least, this is what I have observed a few times.
I do not understand how something so concrete like laws and punishment can be based on something so subjective.
The Kalman case, in my opinion, should not really be an issue. We do have this freedom of speech after all, and I thought that religion and government were supposed to be as separate as possible in order to avoid ofending people. Like in this case, Kalman does not even believe in God necessarily, but he is friends with both atheists and firm christians and did not intend any attack on religious doctrine. He simply should not have been bothered when he chose to name his company "I Choose Hell." I suppose this illustrates how different areas have different standards and tolerate different things. Apparently Pennsylvania still has laws against blasphemy, maybe originating from its religious colonial roots.
However, I was surprised to learn that many states actually still have these kinds of statutes, like Michigan and Massachusetts. I agree with Kalman that the First Amendment is something to take pride in. He then goes on to say that if one cares about the human condition, one cares about the First Amendment. I agree with this statement as well.
Post a Comment